M C MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 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 the 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. Kakkar and the Commissioner (Traffic) Ms. Kiran Dhingra, to examine the matter at some length.

(2.) Having heard all of them and after taking into account 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 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 to curb the growing menace of unregulated 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 this writ petition is pending since 1985 and the menace instead of being controlled continues to grow in perpetuation of this hazard to public safety, it has become necessary for this Court to also issue certain directions which are required to be promptly implemented to achive 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.

(3.) In our opinion, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in addition to the provisions 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 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 relevant for the purpose.