DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31st March 2021
JUDGES: Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shahi P. Chaly
PARTIES
- C. A. Xavier (Petitioner)
- State of Kerala (Respondent)
SUMMARY: The Kerala High Court has shut a batch of PIL petitions that sought directions to the State and Central Governments to require steps to stem the increase in road accidents within the State.
AN OVERVIEW
- The High Court of Kerala in the present case has clubbed together six petitions and combined them to form a single petition.
- The petitioners, a former panchayat president, a lawyer, a man who lost his son to an accident, an NGO, a politician, and two retired officials of Motor Vehicles Department, chiefly prayed for the execution of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Kerala's Road Safety law, the Kerala Road Safety Act, 2007.
- After shutting all the PIL petitions, the Kerala High Court has emphasized the installation of all the necessary technological and electronic systems as stated under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
ISSUES
The issues that the court dealt with:
- Whether the Right to a safe road is an aspect of article 19(1) (d) and Article 21 of the Constitution?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Constitution of India-
- Article 19 (1) (d) – to move freely all over the territory of India.
- Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty excluding according to the procedure which is established by law
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The bench expressed that-
1. "We are constrained to mention that, even after sufficient measures are provided under various enactments to curb the menace of the road accidents, both the Central and State Governments are slow in implementing the provisions of the enactments, which is causing serious prejudice to the general public at large."
2. From statistics of road accidents produced in Court, the Bench observed, "Accidents are increasing day by day and because of the fatal injuries, the deaths are increasing, which is sort of alarming and beyond comprehension."
3. The Bench emphasized that the installation of necessary technological and electronic systems as is provided under the MV Act, 1988, is an inevitable requirement of the day and along with it the judgment urges-
- Adequate steps are taken by the Road Safety Authority and different bodies established under the Road Safety Act, 2007 to keep away from street mishaps. The execution of these actions was to be on a conflict balance, immediately;
- The Road Safety Authority attempt fundamental examinations and inquiries to recognize the hazardous establishments set up, brief or perpetual, and perilous trees or branches overhanging from private and public properties and remaining by the roadside prone to cause mishaps. Sufficient advances were to be taken eliminate them at the soonest, at any rate inside a quarter of a year from the date of the receipt of judgment;
- The Authority makes dire strides for the expulsion of unused concrete and different posts and materials, flotsam and jetsam and waste materials stacked on the trails and by the side of the streets, and the neglected engine vehicles on the streets at the most punctual, in any event inside a quarter of a year from the date of the receipt of judgment;
- The terrains and public properties consented to be given up by private gatherings and neighborhood bodies for the development of street offices to be distinguished. The equivalent was to be finished by giving elective grounds or remuneration to such people or bodies within four months. If the grounds were not given up, such would need to be recuperated after due notice and arbitration within a month;
- The State and the Central Governments give opportune help under any law for the appropriate working of the Road Safety Authority, particularly for the recuperation of grounds indicated the past way;
- The Central and State Government make successful strides as a team with the Authority under the Road Safety Act to control the street works done by different offices to wipe out the regular burrowing of streets by various Departments. This was important to set aside open cash and ensure the public premium;
- The Road Safety Authority under the Road Safety Act, take pressing measures against any individual who abused any directions, guidelines, rules, notices, and so forth of the position and the Government concerning street security;
- the Road Safety Authority guarantee that the nearby bodies are completing their compulsory capacities under the Road Safety Act; and
- The Authority find ways to manage the prerequisites of the mishap casualties in the examination of the Road Safety Act, 2007 promptly, “to decipher the genuine aims of the Act and to guarantee opportune monetary help to hold over the dire necessities, particularly among the more fragile segment of general society".
4. The Court also urged the Road Safety Authority to accomplish its jobs in the way visualized in the Road Safety Act. The Court likewise squeezed the Road Safety Authority to guarantee it was accepting assets from the State's united asset.
CONCLUSION
The Kerala High Court has shut a bunch of public interest case petitions that looked for headings to the State and Central Governments to find ways to stem the ascent in street mishaps in the State. Equity Shaji P Chaly, creating the judgment in the interest of the Bench involving himself and Chief Justice S Manikumar, pronounced that the privilege to a protected street is a feature of the major privileges of free development and the privilege to live under the Constitution. [Articles 19(1) (d) and 21].
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
