M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

                                M.C. MEHTA                                       A
                                       v.
                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

                           NOVEMBER 20, 1997

        [J.S. VERMA, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]                       B

       Constitution of India, I950 : Articles 32 and I42.

      Road Safety-Traffic control-Directions given by Supreme Court to
authorities entrusted with enforcement of Motor Vehicles Act and Control of C
Traffic and Police.
      Educational Institutions-Buses driven for-Necessaiy experience and
conditions for drivers of educational institutions-Such buses should carry
necessary inscription of educational institution and drivers to wear distinctive
uniforms.                                                                        D
       Speed Control Devices-Heavy and medium transport vehicles-Light
goods vehicles-Shall not be permitted to operate on road unless fitted with
speed control device-Speed not to exceed 40 Kms. per hour-Exception to
this direction-Vehicles operating on inter-state permits and national goods
permit-Transport vehicles should not be permitted to overtake any other E
four wheel vehicle-Buses shall be confined in their lanes-Authorities to
ensure that bus lanes are segregated-Steps should be taken to have the
appropriate bus stop constructed-Permit holders to submit particulars of
authorised drivers and photos to be submitted to transport authorities and
also to be displayed in buses-Authorities to identifY and devise ways for
solving congestion problem-Road-side hoardings causing disturbance to F
traffic shall be removed-Flying squads should be set up for enforcing these
directions-In order to create awareness these directions be publicised in
print and electronic media.

       ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 13029 of 1985
Etc.                                                                             G
       (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

      M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitior General, Harish Salve, (A.C.), Dr.
Rajiv Dhawan, Arun Jaitley, Swaraj Kaushal, Mukul Mudgal, (M.C. Mehta) In-
person (NP), Ms. Seema Midha, Wasim A.Qadri, A.D.N. Rao, Niranjana Singh,        H
                                    ,303
    304                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A S.N. Sikka, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Anubha Jain, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
    Rajiv Nanda, Hardeep Singh Anand, R.K.Kapoor, P. Verma, S.K. Srivastava.
    B.R. Kapur, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, D.K.Garg, Sanjeev
    Pabby, Vijay Panjwani, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms. Manju Bharti, Ranjit Kumar, R.
    Sasiprabhu, Manish Garg, Ashok Mathur, D.M. Nargolkar, Pradeep Misra,
B   Ms. Niti Dikshit, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, D.S. Mehra, Saharya &
    Co., Ejaz Maqbool, R.P. Gupta, K.K. Gupta, C.V.S. Rao. L.K. Pandey, S.B.
    Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parikh and Satish Aggarwal for the appearing
    parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
c         After hearing learned counsel for the paities and learned Amicus Curiae
    for reasons indicated separately in exercise of the power of this Court under
    Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we hereby give
    the following directions, namely:

D         A. The Police and all other authorities entrusted with the administration
    and enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act and generally with the control of
    the traffic shall ensure the following :

          (a) No heavy and medium transport vehicles, and light goods vehicles
    being four wheelers would be permitted to operate on the roads of the NCR
E   and NCT, Delhi, unless they are fitted with suitable speed control devices to
    ensure that they do not exceed the speed liniit of 40 KMPH. This will not
    apply to transport vehicles operating on Inter-State permits and national
    goods permits. Such exempted vehicles would, however, be confined to such
    routes and such timings during day and night as the police/transport authorities
    may publish. It is made clear that no vehicle would be permitted on roads
F   other than the aforementioned exempted roads or during the times other than
    aforesaid time without a speed control device.

        (b) In our view the scheme of the Act necessarily implies an obligation
  to use the vehicle in a manner which does not imperil public safety. The
G authorities (lforesaid should, therefore, ensure that the transport vehicles are.
  not pennitted to overtake any other four wheel motorised vehicle.

          (c) ·They will also ensure that wherever it exists, buses shall be confined
    to the bus lane and equally no other motorised vehicle is pennitted to enter
    upon the bus lane. We direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, NDMC,
H   PWD, Delhi Government and DDA, Union Government and the Delhi Cantt.
    0                                 M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.                         305
        Board to take steps to ensure that bus lanes are segregated and roads             A
        markings are provided on all such roads as may be directed by the police and
        transport authorities.

              (d) They will ensure that buses halt only at bus stops designated for
        the purpose'and within the marked area. In this connection also Municipal
        Corporation of Delhi, NDMC, PWD, Delhi Government, ODA and Union of               B
        India and Delhi Cant!. Board would take all steps to have appropriate bus
        stops constructed, appropriate markings made and 'bus-bays' built at such
        places as may be indicated by transport/police authorities.



-             (e) Any breach of the aforesaid directions by any person would, apart
        from entailing other legal consequences, be dealt with as contravention of the
        conditions of the permit which could entail suspension/cancellation of the
                                                                                          C


        permit and impounding of the vehicle.

              (f) Every holder of a permit issued by any of the road transport
        authorities in the NCR and NCT, Delhi will within ten days from today, file       D
        with its RTA a list of drivers who are engaged by him together with suitable
        photographs and other particulars to establish the identity of such persons.
        Every vehicle shall carry a suitable photograph of the authorised driver, duly
        certified 'by the RTA. Any vehicle being driven by a person other than the
        authorised driver shall be treated as being used in contravention of the permit   E
        and the consequences would accordingly follow.

              No bus belonging to or hired by an educational institution shall be
        driven by a driver who has

                  less than ten years of experience;
                                  \                                                       F
                  been challaned more than twice for a min or traffic offence;

                  been charged for any offence relating to rash and negligent driving.

              All such drivers would be dressed in a distinctive uniform and all such
        buses shall carry a suitable inscription to indicate that they are in the duty    G
        of an educational institution.

              (g) To enforce these directions, flying squads made up of inter-
        departmental teams headed by an SOM shall be constituted and they shall
        exercise powers .under Section 207 as well as Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles
        ~.                                                                                H
    306                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         The Government is directed to notify under Section 86(4) the officers
    of the rank of Assistant Commissioners of Police or above so that these
    officers are also utilised for constituting the flying squads.

        (h) We direct the police a11d the transport authorities to consider
  immediately the problems arisin6 out of congestion caused by different kinds
B of motorised and non-motorised vehicles using the same road. For this purpose,
  we direct the police and transport authorities to identify those roads which
  they consider appropriate to be confined only to motorised traffic including
  certain kin_clof motorised traffic and identify those roads which they consider
  ~nfit for use by motorised or certain kinds of motorised traffic and to issue
C suitable directions to exclude the undesirable form of traffic from those roads.
         (i) The civic authorities including ODA, the railways, the police and
  transport authorities, are directed to identify and remove all hoardings which
                                                                                      -
  are on road-sides and which are hazardous and a disturbance to safe traffic
  movement. In addition, steps be taken to put up road/traffic signs which
D facilitate free flow of traffic.
           B. We direct the Union of India to ensure that the contents of this
    Order are suitably publicised in the print as well as the electronic media not
    later than November 22, 1997 so that every body is made aware of the
    directions contained in the Order. Such publication would be sufficient public
E   notice to all concerned for due compliance.

        C. We direct that this Order will be carried out notwithstanding any
  other order or directions by any authority, Court or Tribunal, and that no
  authority shall interfere with the functioning of the police and transport
  department in so far as implementation and execution of these directions is
F concerned.

           A report of compliance be submitted on or before 8th December, 1997.

           List on 9th December. 1997

G T.N.A.                                                 Petition is still pending.




                                                                                      l[
                                M.C. MEHTA                                      A
                                      v.
                   UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

                           NOVEMBER 20, 1997

        [J.S. VERMA, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]                      B

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 2(28)(47), 19,39,45,53, 56, 66, 86,
112, 177, 183, 184 and 207.

      Public safety-c-Traffic safeguards-National Capital Region-National C
Capital Territory-Management and control of traffic-Need to curb growing
menace of unregulated and disorderly traffic on roads-Existing provisions
in law confer ample power on authorities to take necessary steps in this
regard-Claim of any right by an individual or even a few persons cannot
override and should be subordinate to the larger public interest-
Requirements under the Act and the rules should be fully complied with- D
Authorities should ensure that there is no danger to the public by use of any
motor vehicle-Need to take stringent and effective measures to prevent
danger posed to public by use of vehicles which are not roadworthy-For
enforcement ofsalutmy provisions ofAct authorities are empowered to delegate
their authority.                                                              E
       Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 21,32 and 142.

      Right to life-Public safety on roads-Control and regulation of traffic
is a matter of paramount importance-It is within the ambit of Article 2 I.

       ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 13029of1985                 p
Etc.

       (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

      M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitor General, Harish Salve, (A.C.), Dr.
Rajiv Dhawan, Arun Jaitley, Swaraj Kaushal, Mukul Mudgal, (M.C. Mehta) In-      G
person (NP), Ms. Seema Midha, Wasim A. Quadri, A.D.N. Rao, Niranjana
Singh, S.N. Sikka, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Anubha Jain, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Rajiv Nanda, Hardeep Singh Anand, R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, S.K.
Srivastava, B.R. Kapur, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, D.K.
Garg, Sanjeev Pabby, Vijay Panjwani, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms. Manju Bharti,         H
                                    307
    308                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Ranjit Kumar, R. Sasiprabhu, Manish Garg, Ashok Mathur, D.M. Nargolkar,
    Pradeep Misra, Ms. Niti Dikshit, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, D.S.
    Mehra, Saharya & Co., Ejaz Maqbool, R.P. Gupta, K.K. Gupta, C.V.S. Rao, L.K.
    Pandey, S.B. Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parikh and Satish Aggarwal for the
    appearing parties.

B         The following Order of the Court was deliver.ed :

          One of the aspects covered by this writ petition relates to proper
    management and control of the traffic in the National Capital Region (NCR)
    and the National Capital Territory (NCT), Delhi to ensure the maximum possible
C   safeguards which are necessary for public safety. The problem is too obvious
    to require elaboration and the need for urgent measures to prevent any further
    delay in enforcement at least of the existing provisions of law is imperative.
    The need is accentuated by the alarming rise in the number of road accidents
    and the resulting deaths and bodily injuries caused thereby. The most recent
    tragedy in which a school bus broke the parapet of a bridge and fell into the
D   river a couple of days back does not permit any further delay in taking urgent
    measures in this behalf. For this reason, in addition to the assistance we have
    been given by the learned amicus curiae, the Additional Solicitor General and
    th Bar in general, we considered it appropriate to also require the presence
    of the Chief Secretary Mr. P.V. Jaikishan, the Police Commissioner Mr. T.R.
E   Kakkar and the Commissioner (Traffic) Ms. Kiran Dhingra, to examine the
    matter at some length.

        Having heard all of them and after taking into ascount the various
  suggestions which have been given at the hearing, we find that there are
  adequate provisions in the existing law which, if properly enforced, would
F take care of the immediate problem and to a great extent eliminate the reasons
  which are the cause of the road accidents in NCR and NCT, Delhi. In view
  of the fact that the above officers expressed some doubt about the extent of
  powers of the concerned authorities to take adequate and suitable measures
  for speedy enforcement of these provisions and the remedial steps needed
G to curb the growing menace of un-regulated and disorderly traffic on the
  roads, we consider it expedient to clarify that position in this order with
  reference to the relevant provisions of the existing law. It is obvious that it
  is primarily for the Executive to devise suitable measures and provide the
  machinery for rigid enforcement of those measures to curb this menace.
  However, the inaction in this behalf of the Executive in spite of the fact that
H this writ petition is pending since 1985 and the menace instead of being
                             M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.                             309
controlled continues to grow in perpetuation of this hazard to public safety,         A
it has become necessary for this Court to also issue certain directions which
are required to be promptly implemented to achieve the desired result. It is
needless to add that these directions are to remain effective till such time as
necessary action in this behalf is taken by the concerned Executive authorities
so that the continuance thereafter of these directions may not be necessary.          B

      In our opinion the provisions of the Motor Vchicles Act, 1988, in
addition to the provision's in the existing laws, for example. The police Act.
and the Code of Criminal Procedure, confer ample powers on the authorities
to take the necessary steps to control and regulate the road traffic and to
suspend/cancel the registration or permit of a motor vehicle if it poses threat       C
or hazard to public safety. It need hardly be added that the claim of any right
by an individual or even a few persons cannot override and must be
subordinate to the larger public interest and this is how all provisions conferring
any individual right have to be construed. We may now refer to some
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") which are            D
relevant for the .purpose.


      Section 2(47) defines "transport vehicle" to mean a public service
vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private ·service
vehicle. Each one of these vehicles are separately defined in other sub-
sections of Section. 2. Sub-section (28) defines "motor vehicle". In short, the       E
definitions contained in Section 2 of the Act cover all kinds of vehicles which
ply on the roads so that they are all governed by the provisions of the Act.

      Chapter II relates to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles wherein
Section 19 confers power on the licensing authority to disqualify any person          F
from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence. A few of the grounds
on which this power can be exercised, are: When the motor vehicle is used
or has been used i:-i commission of a cognizable offence: When the previous
conduct as driver of a motor vehicle has shown that his driving is likely to
be attended with danger to the public: or When he has committed any such              G
act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, etc. These
general grounds alone are sufficient to indicate that any person who poses
any threat or is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public can be
disqualified and his licence revoked.

      Chapter IV deals with the registration of motor vehicles wherein Section        H
    310                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 39 prescribes the necessity for registration. It says that unless the vehicle is
  registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot be driven
  in any public place. The responsibility to ensure that such a vehicle is not
  driven is not merely on the person driving the vehicle but also on the owner
  of the vehicle. Section 45 pennits refusal of registration or renewal of the
B certificate of registration inter alia on the ground that the vehicle is
  mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or
  the rules made thereunder. It is obvious that the vehicle must be roadworthy
  in the sense that there is no mechanical defect therein to permit it being used
  as a motor vehicle. The necessity of complying with all the requirements
  makes it clear that any requirement which is specified under the Act or by
C the rules has to be fully complied with and such a requirement would include
  the requirement of a specified category of motor vehicles being fitted with
  speed governors or such other devices as may be prescribed by law. Section
  53 permits suspension of registration by the registering authority or other
  prescribed authority if it has reason to believe that any motor vehicle is in
  such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to
D the public or that it fails to comply with the requirements_ of this Act or of
  the rules made thereunder. It is significant that this power to suspend the
  registration is available to the authority even if the condition of the motor
  vehicle is found to be such that its use in a public place would constiute a
  danger to the public irrespective of whether that is a specific requirement of
E the Act or the rules. The conferment of this power is for the obvious reason
  that a motor vihicle which is considered to be unsafe or which poses a danger
  to the public in a public place, if driven, should not be permitted to ply at
  a public place since the paramount need is public safety. It is, therefore, clear
  that even if speed governors are not prescribed for a particular class of motor
  vehicles by any requirement of the Act or the rules made thereunder, it is
F permissible for the concerned authoruty to require the fitting of the speed
  governors in such motor vehicles for the purpose of ensuring that there is
  no danger to the public by the use of such a motor vehicle in a public place.
  The power under Section 53 to this extent is wider. Section 53 read with
   Section 45 leaves no doubt about the amplitude of power of the concerned
G authorities whose duty it is to control and regulate the traffic in public places.
   The basic test io be applied by them for exercise of this power is the need
  to ensure that there is no danger to the public by use of any motor vehicle
   in a public place.

          It is indisputable that heavy and medium vehicles as well as light goods
H vehicles are in a class by themselves in so far as their potential to imperil



                                                                                       r
                            M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.                            311
public safety is concerned. There is, therefore, immediate need to take measures   A
such as installation of speed control devices and ensuring that such vehicles
are driven by authorised persons. Such measures, designed to further public
safety, would undoubtedly be covered by the aforementioned provisions.

      Chapter V relates to control of transport vehicles. Section 66 prescribes
the necessity of a pennit .without which the vehicle cannot be used in any B
public place. Section 84 deals with general conditions attaching to all pennits.
These conditions are deemed to be incorporated in every permit and do not
require any additional or further mention thereof in each permit. Some of the
significant general conditions are that the vehicle is at all times to be so
maintained as to comply with the requirements of the Act and the rules made C
thereunder: and that the vehicle is not driven at a speed exceeding the
permitted speed. Section 86 provides for cancellation and suspension of
permits. The authorities are empowered to cancel or suspend the permit on.
the breach of any of the general conditions specified in Section 84 or any
other condition when contained in the pennit. Both these provisions are to
be read with Section 56 which provides for certificate of fitness of transport D
vehicles. We may also refer to sub-section (4) of Section 86 which permits
exercise of the power of cancellation and suspension of permit by the transport
authority or any authouity or person to whom such powers are duly delegated.
The provision to enable delegation of these powers is obviously to make it
workable in case the jurisdiction of the transport authotity is so large as in E
the case of NCR and NCT, Delhi, so that the need is of several persons to
exercise this authority.

      Chapter Vlll deals with the control of traffic. Section I 12 pertains to
limits of speed and prohibits driving of a motor vehicle or it being allowed
to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum permissible      F
speed.


       Chapter XIII relates to offences, penalties and procedure. Section 177
contains the general provisions for punishment of offences which is available
in the absence of any specific provision for punishment applicable in a given      G
case. The punishment is a maximum fine of Rs. I 00 for the first offence and
for the subsequent offence is only Rs.300. Section 183 provides the punishment
for contravention of the speed limits referred in Section 112 and Section 184
provides for punishment for dangerous driving. The maximum punishment
provided in all these three Sections has ceased to have any efficacy in the
present case and has, therefore, hardly any deterrent effect. We are infonned      H
    312                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A that some time back Transport Commissioner, Delhi had recommended the
    raising of the maximum punishment but even the purposal for increase in the
    amount of maximum fine did not find favour with the Central Government. We
    have no doubt that the very thoughtful proposal made by the Transport
    Commissioner did not receive the attention it deserved at the level of the
B   Central Government. Taking into account the realities and the chaotic state
    of road traffic in NCR and NCT, Delhi, we are surprised that any one sitting
    in Delhi and seeing for himself these conditions, thought it fit not to accept
    the recommendations made by the Transport Commissioner when in fact the
    need for increase of the maximum punishment, required in the existing
    circumstances, is even more.
c
           One of the aspects which was considered at length by us was the need
    to find some stringent and effective measure to at least bring to a halt the
    danger posed to the public by the continu.ed use of a motor vehicle which
    is not roadworthy or was being used/driven dangerously. We find that Section
    207 takes care of that situation by conferring power on any police officer or
D   other person authorised in this behalf to seize and detain the vehicle if he has
    reason to believe that the same has been or is being used in contravention
    of the specified provisions so <is to pose a serious threat to the public. The
    object of enacting such a provision clearly is that such a vehicle cannot be
    continued to ply once it is found that it poses danger to the public because,
E   in addition to punishing the guilty person for the contaventions committed
    earlier, it is also important and necessary to prevent any further danger to the
    public by letting the vehicle continue to ply on a public place.

        In our opinion, the existing provisions in the Act alone are sufficient
  to clothe the members of the police force and the transport authorities with
F ample powers to control and regulate the traffic in an appropriate manner so
  that no vehicle being used in a public place poses any danger to the public
  in any form. The requirement of maintaining the·motor vehicles in the manner
  prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger
  public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of these
G provisions enacted in the Act. As earlier stated, we reach this conclusion
  even without reference to the general powers available to the police officers
  under the police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

        It is also to be noted that to overcome the situation when the strength
  of the police force is not adequate in a given area and the utilisation of more



                                                                                       r
H men is required for strict enforcement of these salutary provisions, the law
                            M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.                            313
confers power of delegation of the authority to other persons. We are conscious    A
of the fact that the inadequacy of personnel and other infrastructure may be
a constraint which has impeded strict enforcement of these provisions so far.
 We have no doubt that after this clarification made by us in this order the
concerned authorities would mobilize the needed support by delegation of
these powers to other authorities/officers and if need be even to responsible      B
members of the public so that the resource crunch or inadequacy of
infrastructure is not an impediment in enforcement of the law and the directions
gi'ven today to obtain the desired results. No doubt, it is for the Government
to make a realistic assessment of the strength of police'force and Transport
Department force to meet the felt need in this behalf but we consider it
expedient to add that to overcome that deficiency/inaction, this order is to be    C
construed as empowering the existing authorities to delegate their authourity,
wherever permissible under the Jaw, to responsible persons in the manner
they deem fit in the circumstances. In view of the urgency of implementation
of these measures, we also make it clear that for the purpose of such delegation
to responsible persons chosen even from the public, these authorities would
not suffer from any constraint and this order is sufficient empowerment to         D
them in this behalf notwithstanding any administrative orders imposing any
impediment or constraint on them, if any.

      In is needless for us to add that the entire scope of this matter and
particularly this aspect to which this order relates, namely, the control and      E
regulation of traffic in NCR and NCT, Delhi, is a matter of paramount public
safety and, therefore, is evidently within the ambit of Article 21 of the
Constitution. That being so, the making of this order has become necessary
and can no longer be delayed because of the obligation of this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution which is invoked with the aid of Article 142 to
give the necessary directions given today separately.                              F
T.N.A                                                 Petition is still pending.