Kerala HC Orders Special Squads in Every District for Hit-and-Run Cases, Faults Centre on Scheme Implementation

Justice G. Girish disposed of three writ petitions from hit-and-run victims, directing District Crime Branch probes and calling for a statutory compensation authority on lines of Australian and English models.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, on 20 July 2026, disposed of three writ petitions filed by victims of hit-and-run road accidents, issuing a set of general directions that require the State Police Chief to constitute Special Squads in every district of Kerala for the detection and apprehension of offending vehicles and their drivers. Justice G. Girish, sitting singly, also directed that investigations in all three underlying crime cases be transferred to teams of the District Crime Branch, each headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The judgment goes beyond the individual petitions: it calls on the Central Government to overhaul the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2021 made under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and to consider establishing a statutory compensation authority modelled on mechanisms in Australia and England.

Three Victims, Three Districts, One Common Failure

The three petitions came from victims spread across Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, and Kottayam, and were heard together on the same day.

In WP(Crl.) No. 721/2026, George Joseph, a 35-year-old HDFC Bank employee from Ernakulam, was struck by an XUV car at around 8:30 p.m. on 26 December 2025 on the Angamaly-Aluva road — a stretch lined with CCTV-equipped shops and establishments. The driver fled. George Joseph spent more than Rs. 20 lakh on treatment and remained crippled due to a severe spine injury at the time of filing. Crime No. 1540/2025 was registered by Nedumbassery Airport Police Station.

In WP(Crl.) No. 15/2026, Geetha, aged 53, filed on behalf of her deceased husband — a 60-year-old mason who was the sole breadwinner of the family. He was hit by a car at around 9:30 p.m. on 31 August 2025 near Ethukkad market under the limits of Kallambalam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. He died in the ICU of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College on 13 September 2025. Kallambalam Police registered FIR No. 1170/2025 but had no lead on the vehicle. Geetha placed a pen drive before the Court containing CCTV visuals of the accident.

In WP(Crl.) No. 829/2026, Anjana Sabu, a 24-year-old woman, was riding her scooter at 9:15 a.m. on 26 June 2025 through the Kadavanthra-Panampilly Nagar road in Ernakulam city when a motorcyclist struck her from behind and fled through heavy traffic. She suffered multiple fractures of facial bones and her right hand, lost several teeth, and needed prolonged treatment. Several police personnel were deployed along that road for traffic control at the time of the incident. Crime No. 391/2025 was registered by Kadavanthra Police Station. Anjana sought direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police to conduct an effective and expeditious investigation so that she could file a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court's Assessment of Investigation Failures

Justice Girish observed that hit-and-run cases receive little serious attention from law enforcers, legal practitioners, and courts alike. Investigations tend to be placed on the back-burner once the offender proves difficult to trace, unless media coverage makes the case sensational.

The Court pointed to a structural gap: tracing a vehicle that has fled requires co-ordinated action across not just the district where the accident occurred but all districts through which the vehicle may have passed. It also requires the timely deployment of telecommunication and forensic science technologies. Without a dedicated mechanism, that co-ordination does not happen.

The judgment also raised a concern that is easy to miss in routine accident coverage. Some hit-and-run incidents may be deliberate attempts on life, potentially amounting to murder, culpable homicide, or attempt to murder. The failure to investigate them effectively, the Court said, “would entail disastrous consequences to the administration of criminal justice.”

Directions to the State Police Chief

Justice Girish issued three general directions addressed to the State Police Chief, Kerala.

Special Squads are to be constituted in each district, working under the direct supervision of the District Police Chiefs. The State Police Chief is to issue appropriate orders for these squads to function in a co-ordinated manner with one another. All police personnel in the State are to be directed to alert the Special Squad about any hit-and-run incident and render assistance. Cyber Police personnel are specifically to be directed to give top priority to requests from these Special Squads.

Wide public awareness is to be created about the squads, with contact numbers publicised so that eyewitnesses can alert the squad immediately after an incident.

On the three individual cases, the State Police Chief was directed to pass orders handing over each investigation to a District Crime Branch team led by an officer of at least the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police — covering Crime No. 1540/2025 (Nedumbassery Airport Police Station), Crime No. 1170/2025 (Kallambalam Police Station), and Crime No. 391/2025 (Kadavanthra Police Station).

The Compensation Scheme and the Supreme Court's Directions Left Unimplemented

The judgment dedicates substantial space to the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2021, published on 25 February 2022 under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the Scheme, compensation is capped at Rs. 2 lakh for death and Rs. 50,000 for serious injuries — amounts the Court called grossly inadequate.

The Supreme Court had already addressed the Scheme's shortcomings in Rajaseekaran S. v. Union of India [AIR 2024 SC 583], issuing ten directions covering public awareness, forwarding of First Accident Reports to Claims Enquiry Officers within one month, constitution of district-level Monitoring Committees, and a direction to the Central Government to consider annual enhancement of the compensation amounts within eight weeks of that order.

Justice Girish found that as of the date of this judgment, the Central Government had not yet taken any decision on enhancing the compensation amounts, in spite of the Supreme Court's direction. The Court noted that this inaction amounts to injustice to hit-and-run victims who, through no fault of their own, receive far less than victims of accidents where the offending vehicle is identified.

Proposals for Legislative Reform: Australia and England as Reference Points

The Court examined two foreign frameworks that address compensation for victims of unidentified or uninsured drivers, and called on Indian lawmakers to study them seriously.

Australia's Motor Accident Injuries Act, 2019 creates the Australian Capital Territory Insurance Authority as a “nominal defendant” liable to pay compensation for accidents caused by unregistered, uninsured, and unidentified vehicles. Section 330 of that Act constitutes a Nominal Defendants Fund drawing from penalties, contributions, and investments.

England's Road Traffic Act, 1988 (as contained in Halsbury's Statutes) establishes the Motor Insurers' Bureau, a company limited by guarantee to which all motor insurers must mandatorily belong. The Bureau has entered into the Uninsured Drivers Agreement (2015) and Untraced Drivers Agreement (2017) with the UK Secretary of State for Transport, creating a compensation mechanism for victims of uninsured and untraced drivers.

Justice Girish suggested that in India, amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 could allow deductions from fines to mobilise funds for the Scheme. A cess on registration fees, permit fees, licence fees, and insurance premiums could serve as another source. The Court proposed that the Central Government consider establishing a statutory authority analogous to Australia's ACTIA or England's MIB, with a corporate fund to meet claim awards in hit-and-run and uninsured vehicle cases. Claimants could then proceed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals against such a statutory authority named as a nominal defendant, avoiding the current situation where victims chase the assets of uninsured vehicle owners.

The Court acknowledged that this proposal also addresses a separate but related concern: complaints from insurance companies about cases where an uninsured vehicle causes an accident and claimants, in collusion with police, substitute a different vehicle to access insurance coverage.

Transmission of Judgment to Central and State Authorities

Justice Girish directed the Registry to transmit copies of the judgment to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, and to the Chief Secretary and the State Police Chief of Kerala, for information and urgent necessary action.