Andhra Pradesh HC Calls For State's Report On Implementation Of Electronic Monitoring Technology For Road Safety, Directs Strict Adherence To MV Act
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the State Authorities to ensure that safety mandates laid down in the Motor Vehicle Act under Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles (Seventeenth Amendment) Rules, 2021 (for short, “the Rules”) are strictly followed within the State. The Court held:
“The issues highlighted in the present petition are indeed of wide public importance and need to be considered seriously. We, therefore, direct the respondents to file a detailed reply giving the details with regard to implementation of the provisions of Rule 167A in the state of Andhra Pradesh and in particular, the cities which find a mention in the table appended to the said Rule which includes, among others, the cities of Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and others numbering 13 in all.”
Rule 167A of the Rules mandates the Electronic Monitoring and Enforcement of Road Safety. The rules specify the detailed provisions for placement of electronic enforcement devices (speed camera, closed-circuit television camera, speed gun, body wearable camera, dashboard camera, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), weigh in machine (WIM) and any such technology).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ninala Jayasurya have also directed the Legal Services Authorities to conduct an awareness drive showcasing the evil effects on account of the non-use of protective headgear and publicize the same in English, Vernacular and electronic media.
“The drive should be publicized in 3 vernacular and English papers which have wide circulation in the state of Andhra Pradesh besides publicizing in the electronic media. Date should be fixed informing the citizenry and in particular, those who are using two wheelers, that beyond a particular date, there would be absolutely zero tolerance towards those who are found to be violating the provisions of the Motors Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under,” it was held.
Background:
The order was passed in Public Interest Litigation that sought to highlight certain serious shortcomings regarding the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under and in particular, Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles (Seventeenth Amendment) Rules, 2021 by the Official Machinery.
Two issues were highlighted in the PIL, 1) non-implementation of the requirement to wear head safety gear while riding a two-wheeler by the State and, 2) the absence of statute-mandated equipment for better implementation of the provisions of the MV Act.
Rule 167A of the Rules mentioned above envisages the enforcement of road safety through electronic devices which include speed cameras, closed circuit television cameras, speed guns, body wearable cameras, dashboard cameras, automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), weight-machines (WIM) and any such other technology specified by the State Government.
The petitioner pleaded that the State was running in stark violation of the Rules and contended that despite the City (of Vijayawada) being covered in surveillance cameras, no efforts had been made to enforce the mandate to wear a helmet while riding a two-wheeler.
Data was placed before the Bench which revealed that out of 3703 accidental deaths, 3042 were attributed to non-wearing of helmets.
The Bench, considering the gravity of the situation, directed the State Machinery to file a report giving details of the implementation of the provisions of Rule 167A throughout the State.
The Bench also noted that the Department of Police dealing with traffic should reflect upon the number of people who have been challaned on account of non-user of protective headgear, the number of physical checks conducted by the traffic police authorities, and the amount of fine collected based thereupon.
Considering the importance of up-to-date equipment in law enforcement and the justice delivery system, the Court held:
“The purpose for the use of body cameras by the law enforcement officers i.e., police and transport officials, who manage the traffic or carry out any enforcement drive, is quite clear and that is to record the proceedings of an event, which can be used in the Court as an evidence against the offending driver or person and also ensure that the law enforcement official has acted as per the provisions of law while penalizing the offending driver or person. Learned counsel for the respondents, while filing a detailed affidavit, shall also place on record the steps that have been taken by the Government with regard to compliance with the statutory provisions.”
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 21-08-2024.
Case title: Thandava Yogesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Case Number: WP(PIL) NO: 116 of 2024
Counsel for petitioner: Party in person (Thandava Yogesh)
Counsel for respondents: S. Pranathi, GP for home, Panchayat Raj, Municipal Administration. Rural Development and General Administration.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AP) 49