Supreme Court: In a significant decision, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued series of directives aiming to improve vehicle tracking for the purposes of swift emergency response for passengers and pedestrians alike. The Court strongly opined that all vehicle manufacturers are duty-bound to fit speed limiting devices (SLDs) at the time of manufacture. The Court issued important directions for mandatory installation of vehicle location tracking devices and panic buttons in public service vehicles.
Also Read: SC Recognises Commuter Safety as Integral Facet of Article 21
Background
The Court was hearing interim applications with respect to vehicle tracking system devices, SLDs, National Road Safety Board and application with respect to challenging legislation passed by State of Uttar Pradesh by which all prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) stood abated prior to the cut-off date.
Court’s Assessment
Tackling the issues one by one, the Court firstly dealt with the issues related to vehicle tracking system devices. The Court took note of the submissions presented by the Amicus Curiae as to why vehicle location tracking device is something very important and the Union as well as all the State Governments should pay attention to it. The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles (Vehicle Location Tracking Device and Emergency Button) Order, 2018 was issued vis-a-vis equipping or fitment of vehicle location tracking device (VTLD) and emergency buttons in all public vehicles. It was noted VTLD helps in timely emergency response via real-time location monitoring; integrated emergency (panic) button; route deviation alerts; speed and halt monitoring; quick dispatch of nearest Response Unit; evidence collection and post-incident analysis etc.
However, the Court expressed its disappointment on the fact that less than 1 per cent of transport vehicles have installed vehicle location tracking device. “This vehicle location tracking device is something which would ensure the safety of passengers, more particularly, women, elderly persons and children.”
The Court further noted that only 8 States submitted reports regarding compliance of Rule 118, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Vis-a-vis the issues related to challenging the legislation passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding prosecutions under the MV Act, the Court took note of the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 issued by the State Government on 8 April 2026 which was promulgated to amend the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Act, 1979. The Court stated that this issue requires further deliberation. “What we have been able to understand on plain reading of the Ordinance is that all those cases registered in the past which were non-compoundable or where mandatory imprisonment is provided or those offences which would fall within the category of repeat offence and all those stood abated by virtue of the Amendment Act, are now to be revived.”
Directions Issued
Taking note of the suggestions presented by the Amicus Curiae and reports and advisories presented by MORTH etc., the Court issued the following directions:
-
All the State Governments and Union Territories to strictly enforce Rule 125-H, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMVR) by ensuring installation of VLTDs and panic buttons in a time-bound and verifiable manner in both new and existing public service vehicles.
-
The Court directed the State Governments/UTs that no public service vehicle be granted a fitness certificate under Section 56 or permit under Section 66 MV Act without verified installation of VLTD and emergency buttons and its reflection in Vahan App.
-
The Court further directed all the States/UTs to ensure retrofitting of VLTDs and panic buttons in public service vehicles registered up to 31 December 2018 in line with the underlying objective of Rule 125-H CMVR, so as to enhance the safety of the passengers in view of the proviso to Rule 125-H CMVR.
-
Court directed all States/UTs to ensure integration of VLTD installation and functionality with the Vahan database for real-time compliance monitoring.
-
The Court directed the Union of India to interact with vehicle manufacturers regarding the suggestion to install pre-fitted VLTDs when a vehicle is being manufactured, and to submit its report.
-
The Court also directed the State Governments to file a fresh comprehensive affidavit setting out the SLD compliance data, duly supported by verified Vahan/Parivahan portal statistics, including total transport vehicles per State/UT, number fitted with SLDs, and percentage compliance.
-
The Court also granted one last opportunity to the Union of India for the constitution of National Road Safety Board as per the mandate in Section 215-B MV Act. “We take serious notice of the fact that past six years, we have been debating on this issue of Constitution of the Board but till this date, the same has not been constituted.”
Also Read: National Road Safety Board Rules, 2025: Objectives, Composition, Tenure & Key Provisions
-
On the issues related to Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, the Court directed the counsel representing State to give the Court more information on how many cases would stand revived and what would be the modalities to take care of all those cases.
[S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295/2012, order dated 13-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.(Amicus) Mr. K.C. Jain, In-person Mr. Krishna Kumar, AOR Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, Aor, Adv. Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. T S Sabrish, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv. Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. S. Lamba, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR Mr. Kanishk, Adv. Mr. Anurag Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abinash Barik, Adv. Ms. Tharini Sre, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Satvik Sharma, Adv. Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar – I, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR Mr. Robin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Balwani, Adv. Ms. Komal Thakkar, Adv. Mr. Sunil Ahya, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mrs. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Manoneet Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Mangalam, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Anshala Verma, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Kishan Chand Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Sahay, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapur, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma-II, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Savita Singh, AOR Ms. Visakha Raghuram, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Das, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Maurya, Adv. Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rajat Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kishore, AOR Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Rishika Rishabh, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aadithya Aravindh, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR Mr. Nakul Patwardhan, Adv. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Gopal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, AG Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Ms. Marbiang K., Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. P.S.Negi, Adv Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv. Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, AOR Mr. Alok Nayak, Adv. Mr. Shivam Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Rasika Jalan, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv.
