The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over India’s growing road safety crisis and directed strict enforcement of vehicle safety regulations across the country. In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, the Court observed that “there is no concept of lane driving in this country,” highlighting lane indiscipline as a major cause of road accidents in India. The Supreme Court stressed the urgent need for strict compliance with Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which mandates Vehicle Location Tracking Devices (VLTDs) and emergency panic buttons in public service vehicles. The Court noted that less than 1% of such vehicles currently comply with these mandatory safety requirements. To strengthen road safety laws and passenger protection, the Court directed that no public service vehicle should receive a fitness certificate or permit unless safety devices are installed and verified. The bench also emphasized integration with the Vahan portal for real-time monitoring and digital compliance checks. The judgment reinforces the importance of traffic rules, lane discipline, vehicle tracking systems, and effective implementation of road safety regulations under Article 21 and the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Supreme Court, in *In Re: “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”*, refused to dilute its earlier directions aimed at addressing the growing stray dog menace across India. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of citizens to access public places without fear of dog attacks. Observing that incidents involving children, elderly persons, and pedestrians had reached alarming proportions, the Court emphasized that public safety cannot be compromised. It upheld directions requiring the removal of stray dogs from sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals, railway stations, and bus stands, and ruled that they should not be released back into those areas. The Court further held that rabid, incurably ill, and demonstrably dangerous dogs may be euthanised in accordance with statutory safeguards and veterinary assessment. States were directed to strengthen sterilisation, vaccination, shelter, and anti-rabies infrastructure.
The Rajasthan High Court, in Kiran Bishnoi v. Sunil Kumar, strongly condemned the practice of “Atta-Satta” marriages involving minors, holding that such customs are unconstitutional and incompatible with the principles of dignity, equality, and free consent. The case arose from a divorce appeal where the wife alleged cruelty, harassment, and dowry-related abuse. During proceedings, it emerged that the marriage was part of a reciprocal “Atta-Satta” arrangement linking two family marriages. The Court observed that such practices treat girls as bargaining tools, undermine autonomy, and reinforce patriarchal structures. Emphasizing that customs cannot override statutory protections or constitutional rights, the Court held that child marriage and coerced reciprocal arrangements violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Finding that the wife had successfully proved matrimonial cruelty, the Court granted divorce and called for complete legal and social repudiation of such exploitative customs.
The Jharkhand High Court, in *Md. Mumtaz Ansari v. State of Jharkhand*, held that inquiries into custodial deaths, custodial disappearances, and custodial rape must mandatorily be conducted by Judicial Magistrates under Section 176(1-A) CrPC and Section 196(2) BNSS. The Court was hearing a PIL highlighting that 427 custodial deaths had occurred in Jharkhand since 2018 and that authorities were routinely appointing Executive Magistrates instead of Judicial Magistrates for inquiries. The Court observed that custodial violence is a serious violation of Article 21 and described it as an affront to justice. It held that the statutory use of the word “shall” makes judicial inquiry mandatory and that Executive Magistrates cannot substitute Judicial Magistrates. Noting systemic non-compliance and discrepancies in official records, the Court directed fresh judicial inquiries in improperly handled cases and ordered strict compliance with future reporting and inquiry requirements.
The Supreme Court, in *Prakashjhot Samajik Sanstha v. Union of India*, reiterated that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental constitutional right but cannot be exercised in a manner that disrupts public order or inconveniences citizens. While hearing a matter concerning the proposed naming of the Navi Mumbai International Airport, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that every citizen has the right to lawful and peaceful protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. However, the Court emphasized that protests cannot create law-and-order problems, block public spaces, or disturb normal life. The Bench further clarified that fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and public safety. The Court also declined to interfere in the policy decision regarding the airport’s name, reiterating the principle of judicial restraint and holding that such matters primarily fall within the executive domain.