A scheme meant to put money in accident victims’ hands quickly is of little use if nobody knows it exists: the Supreme Court has told the Centre to publicise the interim relief scheme and asked whether it reaches accidents involving uninsured vehicles.
New Delhi: In two contempt petitions heard as part of the long-running road safety case, the Supreme Court has asked the Union Government to give wide publicity to the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, to have it published in the Official Gazette at the earliest and to say by the next hearing how the scheme will be made operational. The Bench also wanted to know whether accidents involving uninsured vehicles come within the scheme [S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others].
Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order of October 16 in W.P.(C) No. 295/2012. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal was amicus curiae and Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Union. The matters will be heard again on November 25, 2026.
Publicity first, Gazette next
The Bench said people must be made aware of the scheme and directed the Union to give it wide publicity. At the hearing, Justice Pardiwala called it an “unannounced law”. The Court treated the scheme as a statutory one under Section 164A that falls within Section 212 of the Act, and directed:
Union shall see to it that the Scheme is published in the Official Gazette at the earliest.
By the next date the Union must also inform the Court how it proposes to make the scheme operational.
How the scheme came to the Court
Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lets the Central Government frame a scheme for interim relief to accident victims. It came into force on April 1, 2022 but stayed unimplemented for roughly three years, until a Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, by an order of April 28, 2025 in I.A. No. 76249 of 2024, told the Centre to frame it within four months.
One of the two contempt petitions (Diary No. 40407/2026) alleges that no scheme was framed despite that direction. The Additional Solicitor General replied that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had framed one, and drew the Court’s attention to a letter of February 23, 2026 from the Director (MVL) to the States and Union Territories and to Clause 6, which provides for an online portal, decisions by insurers and recovery of amounts if a claim fails. The amicus and the applicant said they had not been aware of the scheme.
The uninsured vehicle question
The amicus and the applicant, who appeared in person, submitted that the scheme seems to cover only insured vehicles and says nothing on accidents involving uninsured ones, where the driver may be liable. The Court asked the Additional Solicitor General to take instructions on whether uninsured vehicles are covered.
The applicant also put forward suggestions, which the Union has been asked to consider and answer by the next date: quarterly, district-wise data collection by the Ministry on pending claims, unsatisfied awards and pending appeals, publication of those statistics, and better infrastructure for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, with Uttar Pradesh cited as an example.
The annual report petition
The petitioner in the second contempt petition (Diary No. 39789/2026), who also appeared in person, says the order of April 17, 2025 in I.A. No. 260997 of 2024 has not been complied with. That order had required the Ministry to publish the 2023 annual road accident report by the end of August 2025 and later reports within six months of the end of each calendar year. The Court observed: “Only if such reports are published with promptness, the same can be useful.” Notice has been issued, returnable on November 25, 2026, and the Union must explain why the direction has not been complied with and what it proposes to do.
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana High Court Seeks Hit And Run Case Data Under 2022 Compensation Scheme
Notice was also issued on I.A. No. 18487/2026 in the writ petition, with the respondents to reply by the next date, and I.A. No. 64319 of 2024 is to be listed on that date.
What the order changes
Section 164A was meant to give accident victims money quickly, without waiting for a Claims Tribunal to decide the claim. A scheme that exists on paper but is unknown to those it is meant for does little towards that, and the order places the duty of publicity and Gazette publication on the Union.
How many victims the scheme reaches in practice may turn on the uninsured vehicle question. The Union’s answer at the next hearing will show whether the scheme stays limited to insured vehicles or is widened.
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) No. 295/2012, with Diary No. 39789/2026 and Diary No. 40407/2026]
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, amicus curiae; Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee for the Union of India; applicant and petitioner in person