Sign in Subscribe

S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India - Central Motor Vehicles Rules - Vehicle Location Tracking Device

CaseCiter

• 3 min read
Share

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -Road Safety - Less than 1% of transport vehicles have this vehicle location tracking device. This vehicle location tracking device is something which would ensure the safety of passengers, more particularly, women, elderly persons and children. Direction Issued - 1. all the State Governments and Union Territories to strictly enforce Rule 125H of the Rules, 1989 (CMVR) by ensuring installation of vehicle location tracking devices (VLTD) and panic buttons in a time-bound and verifiable manner in both new and existing public service vehicles. 2. State Governments/UTs that no public service vehicle be granted a fitness certificate under Section 56 or permit under Section 66 of the MV Act without verified installation of vehicle location tracking device (VLTD) and emergency buttons and its reflection in vahanapp. (3) All the States/UTs to ensure retrofitting of VLTDs and panic buttons in public service vehicles registered up to 31-12-2018 in line with the underlying objective of Rule 125H of the CMVR, so as to enhance the 10 safety of the passengers in view of the proviso to Rule 125H of the CMVR. (4) All States/UTs to ensure integration of VLTD installation and functionality with the Vahan database for real-time compliance monitoring.

S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India - Central Motor Vehicles Rules - Vehicle Location Tracking Device
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India - Central Motor Vehicles Rules - Vehicle Location Tracking Device.pdf
142 KB
download-circle

Case Info

Case name: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.Neutral citation: Not mentioned in this order (only main case citation earlier: (2018) 13 SCC 516).Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan.Date of order: 13‑05‑2026.


Caselaws and citations referred:

  1. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 516 (earlier reportable order in the same matter concerning road safety, VLTD and speed governors).

Statutes / laws / rules / notifications referred:

  1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – especially Sections 2(35), 53, 56, 62A(2), 66, 182A(4), 190(2), 207, 215B.
  2. Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 118 (Speed Limiting Device/Speed Governor), Rule 125H (Vehicle Location Tracking Device & emergency button), Rule 126 (testing agencies).
  3. Motor Vehicles (Vehicle Location Tracking Device and Emergency Button) Order, 2018 – Notification No. S.O. 5453(E) dated 25‑10‑2018.
  4. MoRTH notifications under Rule 125H – GSR 1095(E) dated 28‑11‑2016 and amendments dated 25‑10‑2018 and 23‑10‑2019.
  5. MoRTH scheme “Development, Customization, Deployment and Management of State‑wise Vehicle Tracking Platform for Safety & Enforcement as per AIS 140 Specifications” (approved 15‑01‑2020) under Nirbhaya Framework.
  6. MoRTH enforcement circular/letter dated 19‑12‑2025 regarding Vahan‑based enforcement of VLTD Rules.
  7. Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety (SCCORS) letter dated 11‑04‑2017 to States/UTs on Speed Limiting Devices and uploading unique ID in VAHAN.
  8. Previous Supreme Court orders in this writ petition:
    • Order dated 30‑11‑2017, reported in (2018) 13 SCC 516 (regarding speed governors and Vahan database).
    • Order dated 09‑04‑2025 (speed governors compliance context).
    • Order dated 14‑05‑2025 (time to constitute National Road Safety Board under Section 215B MV Act).
    • Order dated 07‑10‑2025, para 35.6 (pedestrian crossings, especially near Delhi High Court and National Zoological Garden, Mathura Road; reference to 50 cities in “Report on Road Accidents, 2023” and NHAI).
  10. National Road Safety Board Rules, 2025 (notification already issued).
  11. Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Act, 1979.
  12. The Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 (U.P. Ordinance No. 9 of 2026), amending Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the 1979 Act and its effect on prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
  13. Constitutional provisions: Article 213 and Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India.

Brief three‑sentence summary:This order in the long‑pending public interest writ on road safety issues directs all States/UTs to strictly enforce Rule 125H CMVR by ensuring fitment and functional integration of Vehicle Location Tracking Devices and emergency (panic) buttons in all public service vehicles, and to link compliance with grant of fitness certificates and permits through the Vahan system. The Court further presses for strict implementation of speed governors under Rule 118 CMVR, demands comprehensive, data‑backed compliance affidavits from all States/UTs, asks the Union to engage vehicle manufacturers so that both VLTDs and Speed Limiting Devices are factory‑fitted, and insists on a national action plan toward full compliance. It also grants a final three‑month extension for constitution of the National Road Safety Board under Section 215B MV Act, notes and seeks details on the new Uttar Pradesh Ordinance reviving certain abated Motor Vehicles Act prosecutions, and reminds authorities to implement earlier directions on pedestrian crossing facilities, especially at specified high‑risk locations.