Supreme Court Says Lane Driving Still Missing in India

The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that there is effectively "no concept of lane driving in India" as it dealt with a batch of matters concerning road safety compliance. The observation — delivered with characteristic directness by a bench of the country's highest court — cuts to the heart of a road safety failure that claims tens of thousands of lives on Indian roads every year. In a country where lane indiscipline is so normalised that it barely registers as a violation in the public consciousness, the Supreme Court's explicit identification of lane driving as a critical and neglected road safety priority carries the institutional weight needed to force the issue onto the national policy agenda.

Overview of the Supreme Court's Road Safety Observations

A Bench That Has Been Driving Road Safety Reform for Years

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the matter S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, in which the Court has been issuing directions from time to time for road safety. This long-running case has become one of the most significant vehicles for judicial intervention in India's road safety governance — with the Supreme Court using it to issue binding directions to the Union Government, state governments, and regulatory bodies on a wide range of road safety compliance matters.

The May 13, 2026 hearing was notable both for the candour of the bench's observations and the range and specificity of the directions issued. From lane driving and vehicle tracking to speed-limiting devices, the National Road Safety Board, and the revival of abated Motor Vehicles Act prosecutions in Uttar Pradesh, the court addressed a comprehensive set of road safety governance failures in a single sitting — demonstrating that its oversight of India's road safety ecosystem is substantive and sustained rather than periodic and performative.

No Concept of Lane Driving — Justice Pardiwala's Remarks

An Observation That Mirrors Every Indian Road User's Daily Experience

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala commented, "How do you ensure in this country that drivers do not do away with lane driving? There is no concept of lane driving in this country. Most of the accidents occurs due to that." "Lane driving is something which will reduce the accidents considerably. Government must focus on it," Justice Pardiwala added, asking the Union to look into this aspect.

Justice Pardiwala's observation resonates with the lived experience of every Indian road user — whether they navigate Mumbai's arterial roads, Delhi's expressways, or the national highways connecting India's cities. Lane markings exist on most roads. Lane discipline does not. Vehicles weave freely between lanes, straddle lane markers, create phantom lanes in spaces between marked ones, and treat the concept of lane boundaries as advisory at best.

This reality has direct and measurable consequences for road safety. Lane violations — including wrong-lane driving, sudden lane changes without signalling, and driving on road shoulders — create the head-on collisions, sideswipe accidents, and rear-end crashes that account for a substantial and disproportionate share of road fatalities on Indian roads. When the Supreme Court says that most accidents result from the absence of lane driving culture, it is not making a rhetorical point — it is describing a causal relationship between a specific behavioural failure and a specific, preventable category of road deaths.

The bench's direction to the Union Government to look into this aspect creates a formal accountability pathway for lane discipline enforcement — one that the Court can monitor through its continuing oversight of the Rajaseekaran matter.

Vehicle Location Tracking Devices — Less Than 1 Percent Compliance

A Passenger Safety Crisis That Has Been Left to Fester

On the issue of Vehicle Location Tracking Devices, the Court took note of submissions by the amicus curiae regarding Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which mandates installation of vehicle location tracking devices and emergency buttons in public service vehicles. The amicus highlighted the importance of the system in enabling timely emergency responses and improving passenger safety, particularly for women, children, and elderly persons. The Court recorded with concern that less than 1% of transport vehicles currently have the mandated tracking devices installed.

The figure of less than one percent compliance with a mandatory safety requirement — a rule that has been on the books under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules — is a damning indictment of road safety enforcement at the state level. Vehicle location tracking devices and panic buttons are not aspirational road safety features — they are legally mandated safety equipment whose absence directly compromises the safety of passengers, particularly the most vulnerable groups who use public transport: women travelling alone, children, and elderly passengers.

Calling this situation disturbing, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to strictly enforce Rule 125H by ensuring installation of vehicle location tracking devices and panic buttons in both new and existing public service vehicles in a time-bound and verifiable manner. The Court further ordered that no public service vehicle should be granted a fitness certificate under Section 56 or a permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless installation of such devices is verified and reflected in the Vahan application.

By linking fitness certificate and permit issuance to verified VLTD installation in the Vahan database, the Court has created a structural enforcement mechanism that cannot be bypassed through administrative discretion — making compliance a prerequisite for operation rather than an aspiration subject to periodic inspection.

It also directed retrofitting of these devices in vehicles registered up to December 21, 2018, and integration of compliance monitoring with the Vahan database for real-time oversight. When it was suggested that manufacturers themselves should pre-fit these devices in vehicles, the Court welcomed the proposal and directed the Union Government to engage with automobile manufacturers across the country and place an appropriate report before the Court.

Speed Limiting Devices — States Fail to File Compliance Reports

A Pattern of Non-Accountability That the Court Has Identified

On speed-limiting devices, the Court took serious note of the failure of most States to file compliance reports despite earlier directions concerning Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It reiterated that manufacturers are obligated to fit speed limiting devices and directed State governments to submit fresh comprehensive affidavits supported by Vahan and Parivahan portal statistics.

The failure of most states to file compliance reports on speed-limiting devices — despite explicit earlier directions from the Supreme Court — reflects a pattern of institutional non-accountability that the Court is increasingly unwilling to tolerate. Speed-limiting devices are among the most direct and technically straightforward interventions available for preventing the overspeeding that contributes disproportionately to road fatalities on Indian highways. The fact that compliance reporting has been neglected by the majority of states despite court directions suggests that road safety governance at the state level continues to lack the urgency that the scale of the road fatality crisis demands.

The direction for fresh comprehensive affidavits supported by Vahan and Parivahan portal statistics creates an accountability framework grounded in verifiable data rather than administrative self-reporting — making it significantly harder for states to claim compliance without the numbers to back it up.

National Road Safety Board Still Unconstituted After Six Months

Institutional Governance Gap That the Court Will No Longer Tolerate

The Court also expressed displeasure over the continued non-constitution of the National Road Safety Board, observing that despite six months having been granted on May 4, 2025, the Board remains unconstituted. Granting what it termed a final opportunity, the Court directed that the Board be constituted within three months.

The non-constitution of the National Road Safety Board — an institutional body whose establishment was directed by the Court over a year ago — is perhaps the most striking governance failure addressed in the May 13 hearing. A National Road Safety Board is not a peripheral administrative body — it is the apex institutional mechanism for coordinating road safety policy, data, and enforcement across the Union and states. Its absence creates a governance vacuum at the centre of India's road safety architecture — one that no amount of state-level enforcement or judicial direction can fully compensate for.

The Court's use of the phrase final opportunity signals an escalating impatience with the pace of implementation — and an implicit warning that further non-compliance will be treated with commensurate judicial seriousness. With a three-month timeline now set, the Board's constitution will be a test of the Union Government's genuine commitment to road safety governance reform.

Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act Cases — Court Seeks Revival Details

Abated Prosecutions and the Question of Legal Accountability

In relation to the Uttar Pradesh legislation under which prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act stood abated before a cut-off date, the Court noted the State's April 8, 2026 ordinance seeking revival of previously abated non-compoundable cases. Observing that the issue required further deliberation, the Court directed the State to provide details on how many cases would be revived and the mechanism for doing so.

The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Act prosecution issue adds a crucial legal accountability dimension to the Supreme Court's road safety oversight work. The abatement of prosecutions for traffic violations — which the state's April 2026 ordinance seeks to reverse — represents a weakening of the legal deterrence framework that is essential for road safety enforcement. When prosecutions are abated, the message to violators is that the legal consequences of traffic violations are negotiable rather than certain — an impression that fundamentally undermines the deterrent effect of traffic law.

The Court's direction for details on how many cases will be revived and through what mechanism signals an intent to ensure that the revival is substantive rather than nominal — that real accountability is restored, not merely announced.