Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India, on September 15, 2026, asked the Union Government to consider installing speed breakers and rumble strips near the Delhi High Court crossing on Mathura Road, close to the National Zoological Garden. The Bench emphasised that pedestrian safety at the busy stretch was a matter of public interest and called for more effective measures to protect people crossing the road every day.
The proceedings took place in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, a long-running public interest litigation concerning road safety reforms in India. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan.
The immediate concern before the Court was the safety of pedestrians crossing the road near the Delhi High Court. Although the Union Government had installed a traffic signal at the crossing following earlier judicial intervention, the amicus curiae pointed out that the existing arrangement continued to expose pedestrians to significant risks.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing as amicus curiae, informed the Court that the installation of a red-light signal was a positive step but insufficient to address the difficulties faced by pedestrians. He submitted that employees of the Delhi High Court, lawyers, litigants and other road users continued to cross the busy stretch manually because there was no designated pedestrian crossing.
The location presents particular challenges because the presence of Purana Quila restricts the possibility of undertaking certain construction activities on one side of the road. The absence of a pedestrian crossing or a foot overbridge, therefore, creates a difficult situation for people who need to cross the road regularly.
The Court had previously expressed concern about this issue. In November 2025, the Bench questioned the absence of a safe pedestrian crossing near the Delhi High Court and highlighted the dangers faced by people crossing the busy road without adequate traffic control measures.
The issue had also been addressed in an order passed in October 2025, when the Supreme Court issued several directions aimed at improving pedestrian safety across the country. Among other measures, the Court directed a nationwide survey to identify locations where additional pedestrian crossings were required.
The Delhi High Court crossing and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road were specifically identified as priority locations. The Court observed that thousands of employees, litigants, lawyers, children and families crossed the road every day despite the absence of adequate pedestrian infrastructure and traffic-calming measures.
The observations reflected a broader concern that road safety cannot be addressed merely by imposing penalties for traffic violations. It also requires the creation of infrastructure that enables pedestrians to cross roads safely and reduces the likelihood of accidents.
The September 15 hearing revisited the implementation of those directions. While the installation of a traffic signal represented progress, the amicus curiae argued that additional measures were necessary to ensure that the crossing became genuinely safe for pedestrians.
The proceedings also involved other aspects of the broader road safety litigation, including vehicle tracking devices and the functioning of the National Road Safety Board. The Court disposed of certain interlocutory applications and directed the Union Government to clarify, on the next date of hearing, whether the Board had become fully functional.
The hearing thus brought together two important aspects of road safety governance: the immediate need to address dangerous pedestrian crossings and the broader responsibility of public authorities to establish effective institutional and regulatory mechanisms for preventing road accidents.
Arguments of the Parties:
The submissions before the Supreme Court primarily concerned whether the traffic signal recently installed near the Delhi High Court was sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety or whether further infrastructure and traffic-management measures were necessary.
Submissions of the Amicus Curiae:
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing as amicus curiae, informed the Bench that the Union Government had installed a red-light signal at the crossing following the Court’s earlier observations. He acknowledged this development but maintained that the installation of a traffic signal alone had not resolved the safety concerns.
Agarwal explained that the crossing continued to present difficulties for people working at or visiting the Delhi High Court. In particular, several High Court employees would get down on the left side of the road and cross manually to reach the other side.
The absence of a designated pedestrian crossing meant that people continued to face difficulties while navigating the busy stretch. The amicus pointed out that the problem was particularly concerning because the road was regularly used by employees, advocates, litigants and other members of the public.
He also explained that the presence of Purana Quila restricted the possibility of undertaking construction on the relevant side of the road. This physical limitation made it difficult to address the problem through conventional infrastructure such as a foot overbridge.
The amicus therefore suggested that the authorities should explore alternative traffic-calming measures that could improve pedestrian safety without requiring major construction.
He specifically proposed the installation of speed breakers and rumble strips near the crossing. Such measures, he submitted, could encourage motorists to reduce their speed while approaching the area where pedestrians regularly crossed.
The proposal was not limited to the installation of individual traffic-control devices. Agarwal also suggested that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) should examine the movement of vehicles and pedestrians at the location.
He submitted that an expert assessment of traffic conditions would help the authorities identify appropriate remedial measures. Such an assessment could consider the volume of vehicular traffic, the movement of pedestrians and the difficulties created by the existing road layout.
The amicus proposed that the Union Government constitute an expert committee to undertake this examination and recommend suitable solutions.
His submission was that road safety measures should be based on an understanding of actual traffic conditions rather than relying solely on the installation of a traffic signal.
Agarwal accordingly urged the Court to ensure that the Government examined the situation comprehensively and adopted measures capable of providing meaningful protection to pedestrians.
Submissions of the Union Government:
Additional Solicitor General Vikram Banerjee, appearing for the Union Government, responded that the installation of the red-light signal was an important step towards addressing the concerns raised by the Court.
The ASG submitted that the Government considered the traffic signal sufficient to address the immediate problem. His response indicated that the Union believed the existing measure could provide an adequate degree of traffic control at the crossing.
However, Banerjee also assured the Bench that the Government would comply if the Court considered additional measures necessary.
He stated that the Union had attempted to identify better solutions and was willing to undertake further action if directed by the Court.
The Government’s position, therefore, was that it had already taken corrective steps by installing the signal and remained prepared to consider additional measures in response to the Court’s concerns.
The submissions revealed a difference in approach between the two sides. While the Union Government relied on the traffic signal as an existing safety measure, the amicus curiae maintained that the continuing absence of a pedestrian crossing and the difficulties faced by road users required a more comprehensive response.
The Bench considered these submissions in the context of its earlier directions concerning the Delhi High Court crossing and pedestrian safety across the country.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court expressed concern that the installation of a traffic signal had not fully addressed the difficulties faced by pedestrians crossing the road near the Delhi High Court.
Justice JB Pardiwala emphasised that the issue involved the safety of human lives and could not be treated as a minor administrative inconvenience. The Bench indicated that it was prepared to examine the situation directly rather than rely exclusively on the explanations provided by the authorities.
The Court’s response to the proposed safety measures
During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala stated that the Judges themselves would visit the location to assess the conditions.
The Bench proposed that the Union Government’s representative accompany them so that the situation could be examined on the ground.
Justice Pardiwala remarked:
“It’s a matter of lives. We will visit, both of us. You join us. Everybody will go there. Do you want to do that? It is for public interest.”
The observation demonstrated the Court’s concern that decisions regarding pedestrian safety should be informed by the actual conditions prevailing at the crossing.
The proposed visit was intended to enable the authorities and the Court to understand the difficulties faced by pedestrians and examine whether the existing arrangements were adequate.
The Bench also responded to the ASG’s submission that the Government had attempted to find better solutions.
Justice Pardiwala observed that solutions in India should be “much, much better”.
The remark reflected the Court’s dissatisfaction with an approach that might technically address traffic regulation without adequately protecting pedestrians. The Bench indicated that road safety interventions should be effective in practice and should not merely satisfy minimum administrative requirements.
The Court’s emphasis was particularly relevant because the location was used daily by a large number of people, many of whom needed to cross the road as part of their regular journeys.
Need to examine speed breakers and rumble strips
The amicus curiae’s proposal to install speed breakers and rumble strips was central to the hearing.
Although the Union Government had installed a red-light signal, the amicus submitted that the absence of a pedestrian crossing continued to create risks.
The proposed traffic-calming measures were intended to address the movement of vehicles near the crossing and encourage motorists to reduce their speed.
The Bench asked the Union Government to take a decision regarding the installation of these measures.
The request was directed towards ensuring that the Government examined whether additional physical traffic-control devices were required at the location.
However, the Court did not, in the reported proceedings, finally direct the immediate installation of both speed breakers and rumble strips. Instead, it sought a decision from the Union Government on the proposal.
This distinction is important because the hearing resulted in a request for further governmental action and consideration, rather than a final determination that a particular engineering solution must necessarily be adopted.
The Court’s approach also left room for the authorities to assess the practical requirements of the crossing and determine the appropriate safety measures.
Earlier directions concerning pedestrian crossings
The September 15 hearing must be understood in the context of the Supreme Court’s earlier interventions in the road safety litigation.
In October 2025, the Court issued a series of directions intended to improve pedestrian safety across the country. One of the significant directions required a nationwide survey to identify locations where additional pedestrian crossings were necessary.
The Delhi High Court crossing and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road were specifically identified as priority locations.
The Court had observed that thousands of employees, litigants, lawyers, children and families crossed the stretch every day without adequate safety arrangements.
The earlier order highlighted the absence of a red-light signal, a foot overbridge and traffic-calming measures at the location.
The Court’s concern was that pedestrians were being compelled to cross a busy road without sufficient protection from vehicular traffic.
By identifying the crossing as a priority location, the Court sought to ensure that the authorities gave immediate attention to a site where the risk to human life was particularly apparent.
The installation of a traffic signal by the Union Government followed these earlier proceedings. However, the subsequent hearing demonstrated that the Court continued to monitor whether the measures adopted were sufficient to address the underlying problem.
The September 15 proceedings therefore represented a continuation of the Court’s efforts to ensure that its earlier road safety directions were implemented effectively.
Road safety as a public interest obligation
The Bench’s observations also reflected the broader principles underlying the public interest litigation.
Road safety is not confined to the regulation of motor vehicles or the punishment of traffic violations. It also involves the responsibility of public authorities to create conditions in which people can use roads without being exposed to avoidable risks.
A road designed primarily around the movement of vehicles, without adequate arrangements for pedestrians, may create serious difficulties for those who need to cross it.
In the present case, the absence of a pedestrian crossing was particularly concerning because the location was regularly used by employees, lawyers, litigants and families visiting nearby public institutions.
The Court’s insistence on examining the actual conditions at the site reflected the importance of evaluating road safety measures from the perspective of the people who use the road.
The suggestion of a site visit also indicated that the Bench considered direct assessment a useful way of understanding the limitations of the existing arrangements.
Rather than accepting the installation of a traffic signal as the complete solution, the Court sought to ensure that the authorities considered whether additional measures were required.
The proceedings did not establish a general rule that every road crossing must have speed breakers or rumble strips. Instead, the Court’s intervention was directed towards the specific circumstances of the Delhi High Court crossing and the need to identify suitable safety measures for that location.
National Road Safety Board and vehicle tracking devices
Apart from the pedestrian crossing issue, the Supreme Court also dealt with interlocutory applications concerning vehicle tracking devices and the constitution of the National Road Safety Board.
The broader road safety litigation involves questions concerning the implementation of institutional and technological measures intended to improve road safety.
Vehicle tracking devices form part of the wider regulatory framework relating to the monitoring of vehicles. The National Road Safety Board, meanwhile, is an institutional mechanism associated with the administration and coordination of road safety measures.
During the September 15 hearing, the Court disposed of some interlocutory applications concerning these issues.
However, the Bench separately directed the Union Government to specify whether the National Road Safety Board had become fully functional by the next date of hearing.
This direction indicates that the Court continues to monitor the implementation of road safety measures beyond the immediate question of pedestrian crossings.
The emphasis on the Board’s functioning is significant because effective road safety governance requires not only legislation and infrastructure but also institutions capable of carrying out their responsibilities.
The Court’s direction seeks to obtain a clear account from the Union Government regarding the operational status of the Board.
Outcome of the hearing
The Supreme Court asked the Union Government to take a decision regarding the installation of speed breakers and rumble strips near the Delhi High Court crossing on Mathura Road.
The Bench also indicated that it would visit the location with the Union Government’s representative to examine the safety conditions.
The Court’s observations made clear that the installation of a red-light signal would not automatically bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion if pedestrians continued to face significant risks.
The Court also disposed of certain interlocutory applications concerning vehicle tracking devices and the National Road Safety Board, while directing the Union Government to clarify whether the Board had become fully functional on the next date of hearing.
The proceedings arose in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012, a public interest litigation concerning road safety reforms.
The hearing reinforces the Supreme Court’s continuing concern that pedestrian safety must be treated as an essential component of road infrastructure and traffic management. By seeking further measures at the Delhi High Court crossing, the Bench has emphasised that road safety interventions must respond to the actual difficulties faced by the public and must be capable of protecting human lives.