Mandating Dashboard Cameras: Enhancing Accountability And Safety In Vehicles
Kritin Sardana
31 Aug 2024 6:38 AM GMT
The increasing incidence of road accidents and traffic violations in India highlights the urgent need for enhanced safety measures and greater accountability on the roads. Recent cases of hit-and-run incidents, which are becoming alarmingly widespread across the country, underscore the necessity for substantial changes that can deter offenders and curb the sense of impunity some drivers feel behind the wheel. According to official data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), “Hit and Run” cases accounted for 18.1% of total accident deaths in 2022.[1] One such measure to enhance accountability in cases where things hit the skids is mandatory installation of Dashboard Cameras (hereinafter referred to as “Dashcams”). These onboard devices continuously record the view through a vehicle's windscreen and sometimes other windows, capturing video footage on a memory card. Dash cams often come equipped with features like loop recording, date and time stamps, and GPS tracking, all of which can be invaluable in the event of an accident or other incidents. Though the Supreme Court has previously expressed reservations in Mithun Mondal v. Union of India, Diary No. 18063-2023, about taking up the matter, suggesting that it was more appropriate for the executive branch to address such issues. Justice Kaul remarked that the court should not be involved in monitoring where cameras are installed, regulating traffic, or coordinating with all states, indicating that these responsibilities fall within the purview of the executive. Therefore, it is incumbent upon MoRTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) to mandate the installation of dashcams in vehicles to enhance road safety and enforcement, ensuring the protection of the Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains provisions for utilizing CCTV and other technologies to enhance road safety, particularly under Section 136-A, which authorizes the Central Government to set rules for electronic monitoring, such as speed cameras and body-worn cameras. Additionally, Rule 167-A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 outlines the requirements for State governments to implement electronic road safety measures. It is important to note that another bench of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India, is currently reviewing matters related to the enforcement of Section 136-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Impact of Dash Cameras on Road Safety and Driver Accountability
Dash cameras are an essential tool in promoting road safety by serving as a powerful deterrent against reckless driving and traffic violations. These devices capture real-time recordings of road conditions and driving behaviour, offering invaluable insights for accident analysis and prevention. In the event of accidents, disputes, or traffic violations, dash cams provide clear and indisputable evidence. This is particularly crucial in resolving insurance claims, as it reduces the risk of fraud and false claims. According to information obtained through the RTI Act, 10,46,163 motor accident claims worth Rs 80,455 crore are pending nationwide, with numbers steadily increasing from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The data was provided by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) in response to a query filed by Supreme Court advocate K.C. Jain in April 2024. Imagine the expedience with which accident claims could be adjudicated if the courts were provided with objective evidence in the form of dashcam recordings.
The importance of Dashcams can be further substantiated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court that CCTV footage is a strong piece of evidence and is to be considered as the best evidence wherever available. The availability of real-time, factual evidence from dash cams will expedite legal proceedings and insurance claim settlements, making these processes more efficient and transparent. Additionally, Drivers who know they are being recorded are more conscious of their behaviour on the road, leading to a general improvement in adherence to traffic rules. Conversely, they are also beneficial for protecting drivers against false accusations of traffic violations or accidents, a concern that is especially relevant for commercial drivers who are often vulnerable to being falsely implicated in incidents. As unbiased witnesses, dash cams record events as they happen, helping to discourage unethical behaviour and ensure that the truth is preserved. Overall, the presence of Dashcams promotes responsible driving behaviour, as both drivers and passengers are more likely to follow traffic rules and drive safely when they know their actions are being monitored.
Judicial Endorsement of Dash Cams for Road Safety
In the case of Suneesh v. State of Kerala[3], Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V of the Kerala High Court highlighted the significant role of dashboard cameras in improving road safety and accountability. The court observed that these devices, which continuously record footage from a vehicle's front, rear, and sometimes interior, are valuable tools for determining the causes of accidents and assigning liability accurately. Justice Vijayaraghavan noted that the use of dashboard cameras has been mandated in several European countries and Russia, where such footage also aids in settling insurance claims. The presence of these cameras in public service vehicles could enhance driver caution, potentially reduce the incidence of road accidents, and protect innocent individuals from wrongful accusations. The court emphasized that the technology is beneficial for all parties involved and the installation of dashcams can promote caution among drivers, as the recorded footage helps identify the person at the wheel. It also offers a way for drivers unjustly accused of causing accidents to demonstrate their innocence in court by using dashcam footage.
In another case of Kerala High Court, Prasad M. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., WP(C) No. 10798 of 2024, Circular No.4/2024 issued by the Transport Commissioner of Kerala was challenged. This circular, dated 21/2/2024, introduced new regulations for driving schools, including a mandatory rule that vehicles used for training and testing purposes must be no older than 15 years and equipped with dashboard cameras. The petitioners argued in this case that the circular was issued without proper authority and violated the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. However, the court did not grant a stay on the implementation of the circular, noting that it aimed to enhance safety and standardization in driving tests, particularly in light of increasing road accidents in the State of Kerala.
Also, in Court on its own motion vs The Chandigarh Administration and others, CWP PIL No. 78/2019 (and connected matters) the Union Territory Administration of Chandigarh was directed by Punjab and Haryana High Court to ensure that dashboard cameras are installed in all ambulances registered in UT Chandigarh or plying within the region.
Balancing Privacy Concerns with the Need for Dashcams
In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another v. Union of India & Others[4], the Supreme Court of India established the constitutional framework governing the installation of CCTV cameras by the government or public authorities and the right to privacy has been acknowledged as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that any such installation must be backed by legislation or a statutory provision that confirms its legality. Furthermore, the installation must be essential for achieving a legitimate state objective and should be proportionate to that objective. There is no denying the fact that the mandate for installing dashcams falls squarely within the context of a legitimate state objective, and once the State enacts a rule supporting this, it will clearly comply with the law laid down in this judgment. While Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides legal recourse for CCTV misuse, no prosecutions have been reported under this provision to date. Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 also prescribes penalties for recording or collecting obscene material via CCTV. There will be staunch proponents of the Right to Privacy who argue that dashcams might infringe upon individual privacy. However, determining whether privacy has been violated depends on the unique details and context of each case and should be judged accordingly. Privacy concerns should not be allowed to act as a stumbling block to the mandatory installation of dashcams in vehicles. For example, suppose a person has installed a CCTV camera outside their house at the entrance gate that covers a part of the road, and a couple, while strolling on the road, engages in some form of intimacy. By no stretch of the imagination should the homeowner be held guilty with violating the couple's privacy, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. The recording was made in a public place where privacy is not typically expected. On the other hand, if someone invades private spaces where an individual's privacy is compromised, the court will take a holistic view of the surrounding circumstances and decide accordingly.
One Justice A.P. Shah Committee, constituted by the Planning Commission of India, this Group of Experts, chaired by Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, provided crucial recommendations to mitigate privacy issues, particularly in the context of CCTV surveillance.[5] These recommendations are directly applicable to the use of dashcams. For instance, the Committee emphasized that users of surveillance systems should be held accountable to a regulatory body for any misuse of the recorded data. Furthermore, the Committee's suggestion to restrict data collection to specific, reasonable purposes is highly relevant to the operation of dashcams. By ensuring that recordings are only utilized for legitimate purposes, such as investigating accidents or verifying traffic violations, unnecessary invasions of privacy can be minimized. Finally, the disclosure of dashcam footage to third parties should be tightly controlled. The Committee recommended that such disclosures should require the consent of the individuals recorded, with exceptions only for legal proceedings or public safety. This approach mirrors the principles set out by the A.P. Shah Committee and serves to protect the privacy rights of individuals captured on camera. The State shouldn't prioritize privacy concerns at the expense of public safety. Incorporating these recommendations into the framework for mandating dashcams can ensure that the benefits of this technology are realized while safeguarding the privacy of individuals and if MoRTH (Ministry of Roads and Transport Highways) frame detailed rules to address these privacy concerns, the mandatory installation of dashcams could mark a significant revolution in road safety, the processing of accidental claims, and the establishment of guilt in hit-and-run cases.
Strategies for Implementing Dash Cams Use
To successfully pull off the mandatory use of dash cameras, a strategic and multi-faceted approach is required, starting with an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. This amendment should spell out clear provisions mandating the installation of dash cams in all private cars, as well as in commercial and public transport vehicles. Alongside this, it's crucial to set up technical standards and specifications to ensure that all dash cams measure up to a consistent level of quality and reliability. Collaboration with insurance companies could also go a long way in encouraging compliance. By offering discounts on premiums for vehicles equipped with dash cams, insurers could give a leg up to vehicle owners, creating a strong financial incentive to adopt this technology. In China and Korea, public transportation and commercial vehicles are even required to install dashcams to assist in identifying the causes of accidents.[6]
Getting the word out about the benefits of dash cams is also key to successfully carrying out this mandate. Comprehensive educational campaigns can bring drivers up to speed on how dash cams contribute to road safety and offer legal protection in the event of an accident. In Russia, for instance, the widespread use of dash cams stemmed from common issues like insurance fraud and traffic disputes. Similarly, in South Korea, the government's mandate for dash cams in commercial vehicles has paid off, leading to a significant reduction in road accidents. These campaigns should also drive home the importance of proper usage and regular maintenance to ensure that dash cams hold up when needed. Finally, a robust enforcement mechanism is essential to ensure that the dash cam mandate is followed through. This could involve regular inspections to keep tabs on the presence and functionality of dash cams in vehicles. Clear penalties for non-compliance, such as fines, should be promulgated and consistently enforced to back up the integrity of the mandate and ensure the widespread adoption of this critical safety measure.
In the present era, Dashcams are no longer an accessory or luxury but a necessity. In a country like India, where not every nook and corner are equipped with CCTV coverage, it becomes even more crucial to have dashcams to accurately capture the truth of any incident. With a minimal yet sufficient support from Kerala and Punjab and Haryana High Court's rulings and in keeping with a paternalistic approach, the Government of India, particularly the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), should give serious consideration to implementing a rule that mandates the use of Dashcams. Such a move would represent a major step forward in stepping up road safety and accountability across the country.
Kritin Sardana, student at Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla. Views are personal.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Gov't of Ind., Road Accidents in India 2022, 10 (2022-23), https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/RA_2022_30_Oct.pdf. ↑
Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 (7) SCC 178. ↑
Suneesh v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 9429. ↑
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another v. Union of India & Others, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 996. ↑
Planning Commission, Gov't of Ind., Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, 70-72 (2012-13), https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy.pdf. ↑
Joohyun Kim et. al., Dascam Witness: Video Sharing Motives and Privacy Concerns Across Different Nations, 8 IEEE Access 110425, 110425 (2020). ↑
