India: Judiciary Not A Traffic Warden
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) appreciates the Supreme Court of India's initiative to institute a panel that
will suggest measures to prevent road accidents and to ensure road safety in the country. The court has set up the panel
after hearing a public interest litigation, filed by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, (295/2012) which requested judicial
intervention and direction to the union government to ensure road safety in India. The court appointed panel will be
chaired by Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan, upon his retirement from the Supreme Court.
Honourable though the cause may be, a fundamental question has not been confronted: whose job it is to ensure road
safety in the country?
Statistical data relied upon by the court shows an alarming picture – that of an estimated 126,896 deaths in road
traffic accidents annually. In addition, about 466,600 persons suffer serious injuries in road traffic accidents in
India every year. Placing responsibility for this on drivers, and on inadequate knowledge of first aid amongst average
Indians is a wrong step to start with. All reports that the court has examined highlight these two as major factors that
contribute to traffic deaths.
The primary responsibility of keeping the country's roads safe rests with the government. As long as an environment
prevails in India where anyone can pay, as little as Rs. 1,000, to obtain a driving licence, driving on Indian roads
will remain a game of Russian roulette. What, pray, has the court done so far to end corruption that is rife in the
motor vehicle department?
Central, too, is the role played by local police in traffic safety. As long as corruption and incompetence remain two
defining characteristics of the Indian police, expecting safer roads on the same watch is silly. If police reform
remains something the Indian state won't touch with a maypole, Indian road safety will remain oxymoronic.
Ingrained corruption reflects in road conditions as well. Potholes, roads in various states of decay, is what most
Indians still associate with the word road. Parking bays and bus halts away from the flow of on-going traffic, are
default standards in every country where human life is respected and cared for. In India, however, such facilities are
limited to a few metros and on a few highways constructed under build, own, and transfer schemes. In most places,
traffic lights do not function, and even if they do few bother to follow them. Road constructions are undertaken in a
haphazard manner, since a large slice of the inflated estimates approved for construction are paid in kickbacks to
bureaucrats and ministers feasting off the public works department. And, corruption thrives around constructions that
require regular repair.
Above all, it is important that drivers that violate traffic rules be punished. Here, the court has prime responsibility
not to harass witnesses willing to assist due process. As long as it fails to guarantee that a witness will not have to
visit a trial court for decades for having witnessed a traffic offence, the judiciary cannot expect that lay people will
assist victims who need immediate medical assistance. As long as the police continues to book good samaritans, in the
name of investigating traffic incidents, what good will having updated knowledge of first aid do to citizens? The
humanity that the court does not show the people it is meant serve, cannot be expected from the people unconditionally.
One result of such a callous and scandalous law enforcement regime, ridden with corruption and ineptitude, is the
alarming number of road traffic accidents in India. It is the responsibility of the Indian state, the executive and the
legislature, to tackle the prevailing quagmire.
It is this premise that the court should have comprehended before setting up a panel that creates the impression that it
can ensure traffic safety in the country. Creating such false belief is more dangerous than the evil this machinery is
ill-equipped to deal with.
ENDS