<p>The Supreme Court has done well to recognise commuter safety as part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, placing on the State the responsibility to ensure the right. </p><p>By issuing directives that translate its ruling into practical measures to protect lives on the roads, the Court has elevated commuter safety from a policy framework to a fundamental right. </p><p>The implications can be wide-ranging: a citizen may now go to court seeking enforcement of her right if she finds a stretch of road too dangerous to travel. In extension, the ruling can even be invoked to demand similar protection to life when citizens use other State-provided public utilities.</p>.No heavy vehicle to be parked or stopped on national highways: Supreme Court.<p>Warning against highways becoming “corridors of peril” due to administrative negligence, the apex court said the loss of even one life to avoidable hazards reflected a breakdown of the State’s protective mechanisms. </p><p>It issued a series of directions to supplement its order, including the removal of structures such as illegal shops and eateries within the Right of Way (ROW) of national highways, restrictions on construction in the highway safety zones, a ban on vehicular parking except in the designated areas, and the constitution of a highway safety task force in every district. </p><p>The Court sought the enforcement of its directives through the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), real-time alerts to the police, timestamped photographic evidence, integrated e-challan generation, etc. It also directed the Ministry of Road Transport to file compliance reports within 75 days after procuring data from the states and the relevant agencies.</p>.Parliamentary panel seeks national highway safety force to cut road deaths.<p>The Court noted that national highways accounted for about 30 per cent of India’s total road fatalities, though they constitute only 2 per cent of the country’s road network. This underlines the urgency to de-risk highway travel. India tops the global list in the number of road accidents and fatalities. </p><p>With over 1.7 lakh deaths a year, it accounts for over 11 per cent of the global figure. Besides the loss of lives, accidents lead to loss of livelihood, high medical costs, and waste of resources in multiple ways. Roads signify development, but the losses from road fatalities halt growth in ways not yet fully realised. </p><p>It is too early to say whether the Court’s intervention will help in improving road conditions or travel. But it has made a proactive call to set the tone for change. It should follow up on its directions, and the government should acknowledge its heightened and more fundamental responsibility to keep the roads safe for travel.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has done well to recognise commuter safety as part of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, placing on the State the responsibility to ensure the right. </p><p>By issuing directives that translate its ruling into practical measures to protect lives on the roads, the Court has elevated commuter safety from a policy framework to a fundamental right. </p><p>The implications can be wide-ranging: a citizen may now go to court seeking enforcement of her right if she finds a stretch of road too dangerous to travel. In extension, the ruling can even be invoked to demand similar protection to life when citizens use other State-provided public utilities.</p>.No heavy vehicle to be parked or stopped on national highways: Supreme Court.<p>Warning against highways becoming “corridors of peril” due to administrative negligence, the apex court said the loss of even one life to avoidable hazards reflected a breakdown of the State’s protective mechanisms. </p><p>It issued a series of directions to supplement its order, including the removal of structures such as illegal shops and eateries within the Right of Way (ROW) of national highways, restrictions on construction in the highway safety zones, a ban on vehicular parking except in the designated areas, and the constitution of a highway safety task force in every district. </p><p>The Court sought the enforcement of its directives through the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), real-time alerts to the police, timestamped photographic evidence, integrated e-challan generation, etc. It also directed the Ministry of Road Transport to file compliance reports within 75 days after procuring data from the states and the relevant agencies.</p>.Parliamentary panel seeks national highway safety force to cut road deaths.<p>The Court noted that national highways accounted for about 30 per cent of India’s total road fatalities, though they constitute only 2 per cent of the country’s road network. This underlines the urgency to de-risk highway travel. India tops the global list in the number of road accidents and fatalities. </p><p>With over 1.7 lakh deaths a year, it accounts for over 11 per cent of the global figure. Besides the loss of lives, accidents lead to loss of livelihood, high medical costs, and waste of resources in multiple ways. Roads signify development, but the losses from road fatalities halt growth in ways not yet fully realised. </p><p>It is too early to say whether the Court’s intervention will help in improving road conditions or travel. But it has made a proactive call to set the tone for change. It should follow up on its directions, and the government should acknowledge its heightened and more fundamental responsibility to keep the roads safe for travel.</p>
