Onus of road safety lies with the State

The Supreme Court underlining the State’s positive obligation in preserving life by preventing road accidents and deaths is significant

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling that makes highway safety a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution comes against a specific backdrop: Though road accident fatalities — preventable in many cases — have seen a general trend of decline in India, they still clock a high annual number (over 160,000 in 2025). Highway safety and accident prevention, therefore, remain a major concern for policy.

Road accidents in the country have several triggers, but some of these show up too routinely in the assessment of causes. (Sakib Ali/HT Photo)

The court underlining the State’s positive obligation in preserving life by preventing road accidents and deaths is significant for at least two reasons. One, it restates the accountability of the State, as the primary provider of road infrastructure, in ensuring safety. From planning to design and from execution to maintenance — either directly or through contracted parties — the State’s imprint on road safety can’t be ignored or wished away. Two, the State holds the responsibility of regulating road use. It frames and implements the various laws and rules that govern, among other things, vehicle safety requirements and other equipment compliances; checks on driver behaviour, such as speed limits, licences, several proscriptions on intoxicant consumption; and checks on the adequacy of policing and monitoring of road and traffic conditions.

Road accidents in the country have several triggers, but some of these show up too routinely in the assessment of causes. Be it the black spots — short stretches with high accident frequency, often due to bad road design and geometry — or missing safety infrastructure, inadequate patrolling to check drunk driving and speeding, or roads in want of repairs, these reasons often underline State negligence, alongside individual infractions. The Supreme Court ruling should serve as a reminder to the State to plug the gaps at its end.