The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sharply rebuked the State for allowing heavy vehicles to flout “no entry” rules — registering as many as 1,244 such violations — in the aftermath of a deadly truck rampage in Indore. The court, in a suo motu public interest hearing, expressed dismay that enforcement seemed reactive, with trucks first gaining access to prohibited areas and only being penalised afterward.
This strong response follows a fatal incident in which a truck entered a residential part of Indore during peak hours, causing multiple accidents that resulted in three deaths, dozens of injuries, and widespread public concern. The Court questioned why drivers were not being proactively stopped at entry points, especially for checks like valid driving licences, and why pre-emptive mechanisms had not been put in place to prevent such infractions.
During the hearing, the Indore Police Commissioner, appearing via video link, described the State’s framework for controlling traffic in terms of “Education, Engineering, and Enforcement” — commonly referred to as the three E’s. He said awareness campaigns were underway, targeting schools, colleges and public venues, and that people were being encouraged to register via QR codes to amplify road-safety messaging.
Nonetheless, the Court found these efforts to fall short. Drawing comparisons with cities like Delhi and Mumbai, it urged the State to adopt more forceful strategies, such as stationing on-ground enforcement teams—especially near bars and nightlife hubs—to curb intoxicated driving. The Court also recommended the use of breath analysers during surprise checks.
To assess whether the existing framework is effective, the Court has directed the State to file a fresh, detailed report outlining both the measures already taken and its future plans to reduce traffic accidents and enforce no-entry norms. It has ordered the Indore Police Commissioner to submit the report by the next hearing, scheduled for December 17, 2025.
This judicial intervention reflects mounting frustration with persistent enforcement gaps and highlights the need for systematic, preventive traffic management — not just after-the-fact crackdowns.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.