The Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered a powerful critique of state authorities, pointing to an “abnormally high” number of motor vehicle accidents as evidence of systemic failures in traffic enforcement. This strong rebuke came during the hearing of a public-interest litigation focusing on the state’s incomplete adoption of critical safety provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and related regulations. Against the backdrop of tens of thousands of fatalities in recent years, the Court underscored that enhanced policing—not merely punitive laws—is essential to stem this crisis.
An affidavit submitted by police officials revealed alarming statistics for 2024: in NTR District, 706 two-wheeler accidents resulted in 243 deaths; in Guntur, 654 accidents claimed 258 lives; Vishakhapatnam reported 600 accidents with 172 fatalities; and East Godavari saw 200 deaths. The bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati described these figures as “abnormally high” and directly tied them to traffic mismanagement and weak policing efforts. The Court went so far as to direct the Director General of Police to deploy additional officers specifically for traffic enforcement, emphasising that a decisive effort by the police leadership could curtail the toll significantly.
Alongside enforcement, the Court pressed for awareness campaigns. The DGP had requested ₹8.44 crore from the state government for traffic control initiatives, including public messaging through print and electronic media across all 26 districts. The Court noted that such funding was “necessary for preventing loss of human lives” and ordered the Chief Secretary to consider the DGP’s requests within ten days. The Court’s directive reflects a dual strategy: enhance police presence on the roads while also educating the public about road safety.
Electronic surveillance also came under sharp judicial scrutiny. In April, the Court had asked for a report on the functionality of the state’s nearly 14,770 CCTV cameras and their ability to detect traffic violations like helmet non-use, speeding, wrong‑side driving, triple riding, illegal parking, and unregistered vehicles. The police acknowledged that these cameras were not integrated with automatic detection systems, nor were challan collections effectively enforced. Therefore, the Court ordered the state’s implementation agency, A.P. State Fiber Net Limited, to be made a formal respondent, pointing to the urgent need for technological improvements in traffic policing infrastructure.
The Court also referenced central safety rules—especially Rule 167A of the Motor Vehicles (Seventeenth Amendment) Rules, 2021—which mandate the deployment of technological tools such as speed detection and helmet-checking systems. Despite express legislative intent, these mechanisms remain largely unused. The Court condemned the failure to utilise such tools, warning that installing surveillance infrastructure without enforcing challans or detecting violations renders the effort pointless.
Expressing frustration at the ineffectiveness of current traffic systems, the Court pointed to stark comparisons with neighbouring regions: in Telangana, helmet and speed compliance were strictly enforced, resulting in far fewer fatalities. It questioned why Andhra Pradesh had failed to replicate best practices from other jurisdictions and asked the state police leadership to provide concrete explanations for the absence of speed guns on highways.
The extent of lax enforcement became evident in the sheer number of unexecuted challans. More than 31 lakh challans had been issued in the state, but revenue collection remained abysmally low, pointing to systemic lapses in follow-through. The Court demanded to know why violators were not forced to comply—even by enforcing vehicle impoundment provisions under Rule 167—and directed authorities to submit revised action plans.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court also examined fatality data in broader terms, noting that road deaths now exceed all other categories of unnatural mortalities in the state. Drawing a somber comparison, the Court observed that road fatalities in 2024 surpassed even the state’s murder statistics, and in a chilling parallel, more people died in two-wheeler accidents than were lost in certain natural disasters elsewhere.
Beyond statistics, the Court emphasised co‑ordination among agencies. While the police bear primary responsibility for enforcement, the Transport Department must support them through regulation, education, and licence controls. The Court noted that a multi‑agency approach would strengthen compliance, especially in rural and non-metropolitan areas where weak policing is most visible.
In response to the Court’s concerns, a special government pleader explained that the state had begun issuing over six lakh challans and conducting daily awareness programmes at the district level. He noted that all accidents were reviewed by district-level road safety committees. However, the Court found these steps inadequate. It asked the Chief Secretary to verify whether safety campaigns were truly reaching remote villages and to explore whether funds were being used effectively.
Throughout, the Court’s tone remained firm but constructive. It expressed optimism that if the leadership took road safety seriously, the fatality rate could be drastically reduced. It stressed that electronic detection systems, robust enforcement, and public awareness must replace the passive approach currently in place. The implementation of robust measures would prove the state's intent to curb the alarming death toll.
In effect, the High Court held that while laws permitting fines and surveillance exist, they are meaningless without active enforcement and public engagement. The Court’s rulings send a clear message: road safety is an ecosystem that requires policing staff on the road, technology integration, funding, and public participation—working together to end preventable loss of life on Andhra’s roads.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.