[Sanjay Halikar]

In my opinion this just another classic case of judicial over reach. Agreed most of the highways in India are presently not in a condition where 120 kmph is safe or even practical. But in certain access controlled highways, this is easily possible. For example, the new Nagpur–Mumbai Super Communication Expressway has been designed for 150 kmph. (Was involved in construction of one of the packages). And car technology has indeed come a long way. The speed limit is obviously for sections of the highway where it is possible, not everywhere. In any case average speed cams can be installed as a further deterrent for the reckless drivers.

Also, what will the 80 kmph speed limit accomplish ? Those who break the rules will continue to break the rules and those who drive safely will continue to do the same regardless of it being at 80 or 120.

Personally I welcome this move.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by IamNikhil

The executive needs to tell the judiciary to clear it's own massive backlog of cases, before wantonly hijacking the prerogative of the executive branch.

The courts depend on the executive to provide necessary documents & proof to make decisions. If there is a case backlog, isn't it is delayed by the executive for their own vested interests? The court doesn't have its own investigating arm to speed up. They are dependent on the executive.

Originally Posted by aneesh2M

Seriously! the cars now a days are far better than yesteryear and should be allowed at least 120 KMPH.

True, today's cars can do 200 KMPH and beyond.

court may be right in its stand due to multiple reasoning but what is their Stand on cars moving at 30KMPH on national highways due to bad road conditions even after collecting tolls?

If anything is not adhering to the written law, it can be brought to court notice by means of filing a case, and then the court's views can be obtained.

IMO if one is paying toll for the service then at least one should get what is paid for and that is at least an average speed of 80KMPH. And for accidents a person driving at 20KMPH can also cause a serious accident due to bad driving skills.

If there is a written SLA from PWD dept and if somebody files a case in court that SLA is not followed, then the court can step in to sort out the matter.

Originally Posted by gkveda

When will the court stop interfering with Motor design or traffic rules?

Courts didn't write the motor law. They just interpret the written law. Tell me which law did courts made up?

I am not surprised if courts start passing the judgement like below in future:

Highways shall not be asphalted going forward
Vehicles shall not move around on roads
Passengers shall not travel by private vehicles when traveling intercity
Cars shall not have black colors painted
Cars shall not have more than 4 gears.
Cars shall not have fuel tank greater than 20 litres capacity.
Cars shall not have more than 1 wiper.

If the motor law says the above then the court will uphold that.

Probably these judges were Petrol heads during their childhood and had the ambition of becoming automobile designers. And non fulfilment of their desires have led to this situation.

There is nothing personal for judges. Even if they are experts, they have to go by the law. They cannot allow their personal preference to influence their judgment.

Is it not government responsibility to decide on road Speed limits?

The Government can amend the motor laws and update whatever it wants, say speed limit of 250 KPH. Courts will uphold them.

Originally Posted by theabstractmind

India is just not ready. We have too many unskilled drivers.

Are Indians ready to drive at 80 KMPH? Who made that judgment? Actually, the court ruling is a case between 2 parties. One party made a speed limit of 120 KMPH. The other party asked how do you prevent accidents due to high speeds. The first party didn't have a convincing answer. I don't see how the court or judge is at blame here.

[rAijin_]

While I would love for the speed limits to increase to 120kmph at least on selected Highways/Expressways, I agree with GTO that we are still not ready for it.
Below are my reasons:

• While most cars above 10L-15L range can comfortably do 120kmph, the budget cars ( below 5-8L ) are still safe only around 80kmph. An Alto or Wagon R or Eon or Kwid ( without ABS ) doing 120kmph has a 80% - 90% chance to crash in case an unwanted object is encountered on road ( or in a serious or panic situation) and it may take few 2 wheelers and other cars ( following it or on its sides ) along with it.
  Unless there are lane based ( or engine capacity / safety features based ) speed limits, the speed limits should not be increased.
  
  
• It is still very easy to get Driving Licence in India without even knowing how to drive. I don't think even 10% people with a valid Driving Licence knows well about Driving rules, safety measures and Road Signs. Forget about advanced skills like Parallel parking. We live in a country where people hate wearing helmets or seat belts and not even 1% would get a child car seat. I am not sure how well they may save from crash in a serious / panic situation while driving at 120 kmph.
  
  
• The number of strays on the road. This is the second most dangerous encounter. If it is a dog or cat, you may run over them at high speed ( although I would recommend slowing down and saving them ), but if a cow ( or cows ) is/are sitting on the road, and you are driving at 120kmph, on an Alto, I am sure the situation will become tricky.
  
  
• Any Tom, Dick and Harry can enter a high speed highway, engaged in his/her mobile phone, without looking at traffic. This is one of the most dangerous encounters that you can have while driving at 120kmph.
  Just last week, I was driving back from Chandigarh, the time was around 6pm ( evening sunset time ) and was comfortably doing 120kmph on cruise control on the KMP Expressway ( Kundli to Manesar stretch). This highway has speed limit of 120kmph on majority of stretche. And suddenly, out of nowhere, a person enters the highway, lifts his bicycle over the side barricades, waves a hand towards me and cycles across the road . He was barely 200 - 300 meters from me. I somehow managed to save him, myself ( and the passengers ) and my car from truck that we overtook around 5 seconds back. The older uncle who was travelling with me kept cursing him until we reached home and I had to slow down to 90-100kmph on cruise control for the remaining drive.

[snappysam]

While I do not subscribe to the notion of judiciary taking executive roles, there is certainly some merit to this current judgement.

We have very few safe roads on which we can consistently travel at 120 KMPH. A significant segment of our vehicles are not well maintained either, not necessarily older ones. More dangerous are dumb drivers/riders who give scant regard rules and other road users. All of this is a sure shot recipe for increased fatalities. In short we have are not mature enough for high speed travel.

So yes, this is a sensible ruling. Though personally, I would love to have a speed limit of 120 KMPH.

[matizcrazy]

An increase in the speed limits is a permission given to drive legally upto 120 kph. It is not an exhortation to all drivers to try and maintain 120 kph at all costs. It is, after all, a speed LIMIT ! It means that the fastest driver cannot exceed 120 kph, and doesn't impose any penalty on those who can't reach that speed.
Highways in India have speed limits prescribed but with diminutive sign boards; and these speed limits aren't followed by the preponderant majority of drivers, except maybe in Kerala. How many of the members here have never driven over the prescribed limit at any timein their lives? How many even notice the speed limit boards ? On TN highways, one can easily maintain unmentionable speeds for fair periods of time.
For anyone to say that 120 kph is wrong, would mean to say that they have never driven at those speeds in India; with their big cars and being self confessed ' petrol heads', it is a clear uncertainty.
It is for all of us to drive safely at speeds, comfortable to us, below the legal limits. The maniacs aren't going to abide by any limit and can only be stopped by interception and lengthy incarceration; but that doesn't benefit the RTO and is a non starter. The big boys with their muscle cars won't balk at a Rs 5000 speed fine.
Drive safely and responsibly !

[Rit1988]

This is an extremely unfortunate development. The reason cited is that some motorists do not comply with road rules. Am not sure how lowering speed limit will improve compliance. Errant mototrists should be dealt with as per law but that shouldn't be at the expense of law abiding motorists who look forward to these drives. Highway speed limits are ridiculous in my opinion with the roads and engines these days

[interest]

I think this is clearly a case of the court fixing the problem of safety with a wrong solution. If our highways are seeing accidents from jaywalkers, they should ask authorities to ensure there is access control and pedestrian crossings (skywalk etc are created). If it is a poor quality of road issue, again ask authorities to stick to approved quality (order audit and fine contractors). If it is a car build quality issue, ask authorities to raise standards. When an expressway is designed for 120kmph, it is a wastage of resources to limit the speed to 100 then. Why spend money on designing a road that can support higher speeds only to be told by the court that you will not use it for that speed. We saw it on the Golf Course Road in Gurgaon too. The authorities have designed a fantastic road that can safely support 70kmph . There were some errant motorists who got into accidents as they were driving at speeds above 100. As a solution now they have put a series of thick rumble strips that force you to slow down to 30kmph. This defeats the entire purpose with which the road and underpasses were built. The idea should have been to enhance enforcement. The approach we are taking reminds me of what a certain politician said once- " “Why do we need cars,” xxxx would ask his voters, “when Bihar has no roads? And the poor use (oil-burning) lanterns, so what will you do with electricity?”.



Not very recently, this same court had tried to solve the insurance problem by stipulating 5yr mandatory bumper to bumper insurance creating a flutter and then withdrawing the order once the ramifications became clear. Even otherwise, it seems this court has in the recent past given judgements that have made more limelight than solve a problem (eg. their comments on EC which made huge headlines but were branded unwarranted by the supreme court later on)

Our judiciary these days is interested in picking up only those cases that earn them limelight. They were quick to ban religious processions recently due to covid threat but didn't see any threat or inconvenience from gatherings around Delhi of protestors and are yet to pass any order.

[landcruiser123]

Originally Posted by interest

I think this is clearly a case of the court fixing the problem of safety with a wrong solution. If our highways are seeing accidents from jaywalkers, they should ask authorities to ensure there is access control and pedestrian crossings (skywalk etc are created). If it is a poor quality of road issue, again ask authorities to stick to approved quality (order audit and fine contractors). If it is a car build quality issue, ask authorities to raise standards. When an expressway is designed for 120kmph, it is a wastage of resources to limit the speed to 100 then. Why spend money on designing a road that can support higher speeds only to be told by the court that you will not use it for that speed.

Seconded. Adding to your point, along with meeting the standards, MoRTH should show proof of reducing accident rates on the stretch of highways with the higher speed limits.

[Arun Varma]

I travel between Chennai and Trivandrum fairly regularly and have been doing so for the last 5 years. The route I take is Trivandrum - Nagercoil - Madurai - Trichy - Chennai. This route has some of the best roads I have ever traveled on in India. You can comfortably maintain unmentionable speeds for long stretches. The broad well laid roads (for the most part) lull you into thinking you are doing 80 when you are in fact well in excess of 120.

Well, that's how I started 5 years ago. Over the years, however, the sheer number of accidents I have seen on this stretch - many of which unfortunately unfolded in front my eyes and the memories of which I will carry to my grave - have made me a sedate and defensive driver who never crosses 100 and cruises usually at 80. Barring a handful of incidents where the motorist was asleep at the wheel the majority of the accidents I have witnessed were as a result of collision with humans, animals and other vehicles due to inability of the impacting vehicle to stop in time.

I realise this is anecdotal and my apologies for that, but it has served a valuable lesson for me to prioritise what is truly important - the safety and wellbeing of my family and fellow occupants. And guess what, while the total time of my overall journey has increased by a few hours, the enjoyment of the long drive hasn't. I have learned that the joy is in the company during the drive and driving slowly (slower) allows me to appreciate the scenery better and I arrive at my destination in a better frame of mind and of course, life and limb intact.

I believe this is a welcome judgment and I hope that the governments across the country will find ways to enforce this limit and save some lives. Just my two bits.

[Totoro11]

There are two kinds of people on Indian roads, those who follow speed limits and those who don't. For the first kind, their traffic anticipation and safety concern dictates the speed at which they drive. Even if the speed limit is 100kmph, they will probably drive at 95 if the road is clear.
The second kind are after an adrenaline rush or want to have fun or show off (or maybe have political or police connections and hence not worried about challans or accidents).
For both kinds, official speed limits hold limited meaning. No sane driver will drive at 120kmph just because that is the limit. There have to be other reasons and conducive factors to reach the speed. so in my opinion, let the govt make the roads and the rules. We are still too far from the stage where limits are going to be followed and people will not be harassed by traffic police unnecessarily.

[WorkingGuru]

Agree with the decision, although the priorities of judicial activism makes no sense to me.

IMO when people who drive occassionally see an open road, they often tend to give in to their urge to take to high speeds & end up driving like maniacs.

To control such people, a speed limit for the general population would do plenty good. Creative ways of enforcement will follow over time.

[pradeepkc]

I do agree with the judgement here. The government should have looked at rules compliance at the highest priority and adhering to international standards when it comes to road infrastructure. Let's not forget, India has the highest number of road deaths with just 1% of the world's vehicular population.

[clementw]

Judicial over reach is one thing, however I am inclined to agree with the High Court on this one. Our roads especially the highways are littered with bad drivers, rule breakers, slow moving vehicles, vehicles that have broken down on the road, cattle, wrong side going two wheelers and so much more. Also many of the vehicles on the highway may not have safety features in them or worse the occupants of the vehicles don't wear seat belts.
So erring on the side of caution is not a bad thing.

[osp]

Originally Posted by Totoro11

Even if the speed limit is 100kmph, they will probably drive at 95 if the road is clear.

This is one category of people who will be put to unnecessary risk just because some people will be emboldened to legitimately speed up to 120. Not saying 120 is bad in itself, but only if selectively applied and reassesed time to time basis condition of roads at the relevant point of time. Although, not sure how much that would even be practicable

[ganesc]

Originally Posted by whitewing

The court asked the Govt to justify the increase in speed limit, the Govt justified it by

The court did not agree with the reasoning

I find it hard to dispute the reasoning of the court.

If the Govt. is convinced that increase in speed limit is warranted, they should have provided a better justification.

Thanks for sharing.
Just goes to show how incomplete information can trigger a lot of discussions!

Just googled:

Agree Singapore is a small city-state and every 500M, there is a traffic light but the expressways except during peak hours are decent enough to test your car's/bike's ability.

May not be 100% accurate, but you get the point.