Supreme Court stresses enforcement of existing vehicle safety laws.

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to consider a representation by Jothydev Kesavadev, a diabetic specialist and researcher, who filed a PIL seeking effective implementation and enforcement of mandatory usage of seat belts, child restraint systems and first-aid kits in all vehicles.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that there are already adequate laws mandating compliance with safety measures, including the use of safety belts, while a vehicle is in motion.

Why did the Supreme Court say a fresh judicial direction was not needed?

The Bench said non-compliance with these laws by passengers, or failure of law-enforcement agencies to take appropriate action against defaulters, is essentially a matter of maintaining law and order and traffic discipline.

"The non-compliance with these laws by the passengers or the failure of law enforcing agencies in taking appropriate action against defaulters is essentially a question of maintenance of law and order as well as traffic discipline. A judicial order by this court reiterating the mandatory legal provisions per se will not aid in their enforcement," Court said.

Petitioner Jothydev Kesavadev had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions for effective implementation and enforcement of mandatory safety measures in vehicles.

What do existing laws require on seat belts and child restraint systems?

The petitioner pointed out that Section 194B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides penalties for driving without wearing a safety belt and for carrying passengers who are not wearing safety belts.

He also contended that the law requires children below the prescribed age to be secured through safety belts or child restraint systems.

Further, the petition stated that 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.

The petitioner, however, submitted that despite these laws, a large number of vehicles have their seat belt sockets obstructed or rendered non-functional through measures such as seat covers, removal of receptacles and other voluntary modifications.

He also submitted that due to "negligence on behalf of the citizens" and weak enforcement of existing laws, passengers involved in road accidents face a heightened risk of serious injuries and even death.

The petitioner had also sent a representation to the authorities on February 16, 2026, highlighting concerns relating to passenger safety and seat belt usage. Finding no response, he approached the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court direct?

After hearing advocate Wills Matthews for the petitioner, Court disposed of the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to forward a copy of the petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

Court said the Ministry may consider the recommendations and suggestions made by the petitioner as part of road safety measures.

Case Title: Jothydev Kesavadev Vs Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana 

Date of Judgment: September 09, 2020

Tags: