This is a record-of-proceedings order in a continuing PIL, not a final judgment on merits. The directions are interim monitoring directions; no finding of contempt has been made, and the Court's observations about the scheme's coverage of uninsured vehicles await the ASG's instructions.
- Case
- S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Justice J.B. Pardiwala; Justice K.V. Viswanathan
- Case numbers
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012
- Outcome
- Interim monitoring order in a continuing public interest litigation: issue of notice in two contempt petitions and directions to the Union on the interim-relief scheme for road-accident victims.
Two contempt pleas, one notice, and directions on the victims' scheme
On 16 October 2026, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, monitoring the long-pending road-safety PIL filed by S. Rajaseekaran (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012), dealt with two contempt petitions preferred by an applicant appearing in person. The petitions alleged that two earlier directions of the Court had not been complied with.
The Court issued notice in one petition, returnable on 25 November 2026, and turned to the substance of the second: the framing of an interim-relief scheme under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It directed the Union to give wide publicity to the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, to publish it in the Official Gazette at the earliest, and to present, by the next date, a fair idea of how it proposes to make the scheme operational.
The two orders said to have been disobeyed
The first contempt petition (Diary No. 39789/2026) concerns the Court's order dated 17 April 2025 in I.A. No. 260997 of 2024. That order recorded the ASG's statement that publication of the annual report on road accidents in 2023 was ongoing, granted the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways time to publish it by the end of August 2025, and directed MoRTH to ensure that such annual reports are published within six months from the expiry of every calendar year.
The Court's order observes that the applicant says this has not been complied with till this point of time; it has asked the Union to reply why the direction has not been complied with and what it proposes to do.
The second contempt petition (Diary No. 40407/2026) concerns the Court's order dated 28 April 2025 in I.A. No. 76249 of 2024. The order, reproduced in the proceedings, noted that although Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act was brought into force on 1 April 2022, the Central Government had not implemented it by framing a scheme for interim relief for claimants for three years — a failure the Court said had to be deprecated — and directed the Central Government to frame a scheme under Section 164A as expeditiously as possible, and in any event within four months. The applicant's case is that no steps were taken despite this specific order.
The 2026 scheme as placed before the Court
The ASG, Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Union, told the Court that the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has framed the Scheme under Section 164A titled 'Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026', drawing attention particularly to clause 6, the procedure for receiving interim compensation.
Under that clause, a claimant applies in Form I through an electronic portal designated by the Central Government; the application goes to the Department of Financial Services and the investigating officer; the officer uploads the detailed accident report within 90 days of the accident; the insurer accepts or rejects with reasons in Form II within 30 days of that upload, and if it accepts, payment is made before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days of acceptance. Amounts paid are deducted from any later settlement or final award, and interim relief is recoverable if the Tribunal later rules against the claimant.
The ASG also pointed to a letter dated 23 February 2026 by the Director (MVL) circulating the scheme to the Chief Secretaries and administrators of States and Union Territories.
The amicus curiae, Gaurav Agrawal, and the applicant appearing in person told the Court they had no idea the scheme had been framed — and, more importantly, that the scheme applies only to claims arising from the use of insured motor vehicles: interim compensation would be paid by the authorised insurer, with no provision for uninsured vehicles where the driver could be asked to pay.
Publicise it, publish it, make it work
On the insured-only coverage, the Court asked the ASG to take appropriate instructions on whether the scheme would also include non-insured vehicles. It then turned to public awareness: the Union must ensure people at large come to know about the scheme, because it is a beneficial piece of legislation and a common person will not otherwise know of a right to pray for interim relief. The Court directed the Union to give wide publicity to the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026.
It also drew the Union's attention to Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: rules under the Act must be published in the Official Gazette and come into force on publication (unless a later date is appointed), and every rule made by a State Government must be laid before the State Legislature. This scheme, being a statutory scheme framed under Section 164A, falls under Section 212 — and the Court directed the Union to see that the scheme is published in the Official Gazette at the earliest. By the next date of hearing, the Union must give the Court a fair idea of how it proposes to make the scheme operational.
The Court also asked the Union to consider suggestions made by the applicant appearing in person: MoRTH should collect district-wise data from States, High Courts, IRDAI and insurers on claims pending before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals under Section 166, appeals under Section 173, recovery proceedings, and unsatisfied awards and High Court orders; States should furnish this quarterly and MoRTH should publish consolidated statistics to identify bottlenecks; and States, with the High Courts, should provide adequate infrastructure for Claims Tribunals — the order notes the acute position in Uttar Pradesh, where claims take on average more than five years to be decided.
What happens next
The contempt petitions and the pending applications are listed on 25 November 2026 at 2.00 p.m. before the same Bench. On I.A. No. 18487 of 2026 the Court issued notice; I.A. No. 64319 of 2024 will be listed with the main matter on the next date.
By then the Union must have answered the contempt petitions, reported on Gazette publication and publicity of the 2026 scheme, taken instructions on uninsured vehicles, and indicated how it will make the scheme operational and respond to the data-collection and infrastructure suggestions.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: contempt as a compliance engine in PILs
This order is a small masterclass in how continuing mandamus works in Indian PILs. The writ petition (filed in 2012) never 'ends' with a judgment; the Court retains the matter and polices implementation through interim orders, with contempt petitions as the enforcement lever. Note what the applicant did not ask for: a fresh declaration of rights. The battle is over two administrative facts — a report unpublished, a scheme unframed — and the contempt route forces the executive to answer on affidavit.
Two doctrinal threads are worth tracking. First, the Section 164A scheme: interim relief during the pendency of the main compensation claim is a classic access-to-justice device, but as the amicus spotted, its design choice (insurer-paid, hence insured-vehicles-only) can quietly exclude the most vulnerable victims. That is the question the ASG must now take instructions on. Second, Section 212: the Court is reminding the executive that a statutory scheme is not law-in-action until it is gazetted and publicised — publication is not a clerical formality but the trigger of legal effect, and publicity is what converts a scheme on paper into relief actually claimed.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The Court issued notice (returnable 25 November 2026) in one of the two contempt petitions (Diary No. 39789/2026). For each petition, identify the earlier order said to have been disobeyed and the substance of that order.
- What three things did the Court direct the Union to do in relation to the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, and why did it invoke Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
- The amicus and the applicant-in-person told the Court the scheme covers only insured vehicles. What did the Court ask the ASG to take instructions on, and why is that distinction material for the applicant's data suggestions?
