Supreme Court declines seat-belt enforcement PIL, sends suggestions to road transport ministry
A bench led by the Chief Justice held that reiterating existing seat-belt laws would not aid enforcement, disposing of the PIL with liberty to approach the ministry.
The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest petition seeking directions for the mandatory usage and enforcement of seat belts, child restraint systems, and first-aid kits in all vehicles. On 9 September 2026, a three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that the country already has adequate laws requiring these safety measures, and that a judicial order reiterating those provisions would not by itself help their enforcement. The Court characterised the failure to comply with, or enforce, seat-belt rules as essentially a question of law and order and traffic discipline. It declined to issue the directions sought and instead granted the petitioner liberty to forward the petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for consideration of his suggestions as part of road safety measures.
How the petition reached the Court
The petitioner, Jothydev Kesavadev, was described as an internationally acclaimed diabetic specialist and researcher with over 300 publications. He filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, stated to be genuinely in public interest, seeking effective implementation and enforcement of mandatory seat belts, child restraint systems, and first-aid kits across all vehicles.
The petition pointed to the existing statutory framework. Section 194B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides penalties for driving without a safety belt and for carrying passengers not wearing safety belts, and requires children below the prescribed age to be secured through safety belts or child restraint systems. Rule 138(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, requires the driver, front seat occupants, and applicable front-facing rear seat occupants to wear seat belts while the vehicle is in motion.
Despite these provisions, the petitioner averred that many vehicles had rendered seat-belt sockets non-functional through seat covers, removal of receptacles, and other voluntary modifications. He acknowledged that owing to “negligence on behalf of the citizens” and weak enforcement, road-accident passengers face a heightened risk of serious injury or death. He had sent a representation on 16 February 2026 to the respondent highlighting these concerns, and approached the Court after finding no response.
Why the Court declined to intervene
The Court heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It accepted that adequate laws for mandatory compliance with safety measures, including safety belts, while a vehicle is in motion, were hardly disputable.
The difficulty, the Court said, lay elsewhere. Non-compliance by passengers, or the failure of enforcement agencies to act against defaulters, was “essentially a question of maintenance of law and order as well as traffic discipline.” On that footing, the bench found that a judicial order reiterating the mandatory legal provisions would not, by itself, aid their enforcement.
The reasoning marks the boundary between existence of law and its enforcement. Where a statutory scheme is already in place, the Court treated a fresh writ direction restating that scheme as adding nothing to on-ground compliance, which turns on administrative and policing action rather than a further judicial pronouncement.
Order
The Court condoned the delay and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to forward a copy of the petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which may consider the recommendations and suggestions made by him as part of road safety measures. All pending applications were also disposed of.