Writ filed seeking direction to formulate suitable Road Traffic Safety Act to for minimization of road accidents - All matters adequately taken care by Motor Vehicles Act - If there is any lacuna or defect it can be corrected by legislature and not by Court.

Supreme Court dismisses PIL on Road Traffic Safety Act. Apex Court emphasizes separation of powers; declines legislative-like directives in road safety petition

The Supreme Court of India dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Common Cause (A Registered Society) seeking the enactment of a Road Traffic Safety Act to minimize road accidents. The judgment, delivered on April 11, 2008, by the bench comprising Justices H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju, underscores the doctrine of separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature, and executive.

The petition sought directives for comprehensive road safety measures, including improved licensing procedures, driver training, road infrastructure, accident analysis, road safety education, and ambulance availability. The petitioner argued that these measures could significantly reduce road traffic fatalities and injuries.

In the judgment, Justice Katju articulated that the judiciary should not encroach into the domains of the legislature or the executive. He emphasized that the judiciary lacks the expertise, resources, and mandate to issue directives of a legislative or executive nature. The judgment cited the comprehensive nature of the existing Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which already addresses many aspects of road safety. Any deficiencies or lacunae in the Act should be rectified by legislative amendments rather than judicial directives.

Justice Sema, concurring with the decision to dismiss the petition, dissociated from certain observations regarding the jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining PILs. He acknowledged that while courts could play a catalytic role in addressing social issues, they should refrain from legislative functions.

The judgment referenced a seven-Judge Bench decision in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, which reinforced that courts should not issue directives of a legislative nature, maintaining that legislation is the prerogative of the legislature.

The Court remarked on the misuse of PILs, noting that while they are intended to aid underprivileged sections of society, they have often become tools for publicity or personal interests. It warned against judicial adventurism and underscored the importance of judicial restraint.

The dismissal of the petition reflects the Court's stance that while it can suggest improvements, it cannot mandate legislative action. The judgment highlights the judiciary's role as a sentinel of democracy, ensuring that the executive and legislature operate within constitutional bounds.

Statutory provisions

Article 32, Article 21, Article 226, Article 50 of the Constitution of India, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 215

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India(SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 143720