RESEARCH NOTE

Prepared pursuant to legal research on IRC Guidelines, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Judicial Precedents

I.   Introduction

Speed breakers are among the most commonly deployed traffic-calming devices in India. While their primary purpose is to reduce vehicular speed and prevent accidents, improperly constructed or inadequately marked speed breakers have themselves become a significant source of road fatalities and injuries. Parliamentary data, as reflected in a reply tabled before the Rajya Sabha in November 2016 (Ministry of Home Affairs), reveals that speed breakers accounted for 11,008 accidents per year across 36 States in 2014 and 2015, with Delhi alone recording 41 fatalities in 2015. This paradox — where a safety device becomes a hazard — underscores the critical importance of a robust legal and technical framework governing the design, placement, and visibility markings of speed breakers.

This research note maps the applicable statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the technical guidelines issued by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), and relevant judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, with a particular focus on the regulatory regime applicable in Delhi. It concludes with a set of practical compliance standards for the marking and colourization of speed breakers.

II.   Statutory Framework

A.   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not contain an explicit definition of a ‘speed breaker’; however, several provisions of the Act directly authorize and regulate traffic-calming devices such as speed breakers:

• Section 112 (Limits of Speed): This section empowers State Governments to impose restrictions on the speed of motor vehicles in the interest of public safety. Speed breakers function as a physical enforcement mechanism for speed restrictions mandated under this provision.
• Section 116 (Power to Erect Traffic Signs): This section empowers competent authorities to erect traffic signs on roads, including warning signs prescribed under IRC:67-1977, such as the ‘Hump or Rough Road Ahead’ sign, which must mandatorily accompany every speed breaker installation.

Significantly, pursuant to recent amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, contractors and consultants now face a penalty of up to Rs. 1,00,000 for failure to adhere to the officially prescribed safety and design benchmarks for road infrastructure, including speed breakers. Prior to these amendments, IRC guidelines were technically advisory, rendering enforcement difficult. The amended legal framework elevates these guidelines to a near-mandatory standard.

B.   Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH)

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has adopted the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines as the authoritative technical standard for speed breaker construction across the country. These guidelines — primarily IRC:99-1988 and its updated version IRC:99-2018 (Guidelines for Traffic Calming Measures in Urban and Rural Areas) — are adopted by MoRTH and the Public Works Departments of various State Governments as mandatory design specifications for any speed breaker construction on public roads.

III.   Technical Guidelines — IRC Standards (IRC:99-1988 / IRC:99-2018)

A.   Background and Genesis of the Guidelines

The Indian Roads Congress, at the request of the Traffic Engineering Committee, commissioned the University of Roorkee to draft guidelines for speed breakers based on field studies. After due consideration by the Traffic Engineering Committee — comprising domain experts — the IRC formally published these guidelines. The guidelines acknowledge that speed breakers provide ‘visual, audible and tactile stimuli which alert drivers and cause them to slow down’ but caution that ‘no particular design is suitable for all types of vehicles.’ The design recommended therein is described as a compromise suited to average Indian road traffic conditions.

B.   Scope and Warrants — Where Speed Breakers Are Permissible

The IRC guidelines expressly state that speed breakers are ‘meant mainly for residential areas, minor roads, and similar situations’ and that their use on ‘major inter-city roads outside urban areas is not considered good engineering practice.’ Speed breakers are warranted in the following situations:

• T-intersections of minor roads with rural trunk highways having low traffic volumes on the minor road but very high average operating speed and poor sight distances — locations characterised by a high record of fatal accidents.
• Intersections of minor roads with major roads, and mid-block sections in urban areas where it is desirable to bring down vehicle speeds.
• Selected local streets in residential areas, school, college or university campuses, hospitals, and areas where traffic is observed to exceed the regulated or safe speed.
• Any situation with a consistent record of accidents primarily attributed to vehicle speed.
• Approaches to temporary diversions, weak or narrow bridges and culverts requiring speed restrictions for safety.
• Minor arms of uncontrolled junctions and at railway level crossings.
• Sharp curves with poor sight distances, and areas of ribbon development where high-speed vehicles pose a danger to pedestrians.

C.   Design Specifications

An ideally designed speed breaker/hump must satisfy the following requirements under the IRC guidelines:

• There should be no damage to vehicles nor excessive discomfort to drivers and passengers when passing at the preferred crossing speed.
• The hump should not give rise to excessive noise or cause harmful vibrations to adjoining buildings or affect the residents of the area.
• Above the design speed, a driver should suffer increasing levels of discomfort (without losing directional control or suffering vehicle damage) depending on the extent to which the design speed is exceeded.

The IRC:99-2018 prescribes the following technical specifications:

D.   Warning Signage and Colourization Requirements

The IRC guidelines and subsequent judicial interpretations mandate the following visibility and marking requirements — failure to comply with any of these renders a speed breaker legally non-compliant:

• Advance Warning Sign: A ‘Speed Breaker / Hump Ahead’ warning sign (as prescribed under IRC:67-1977) must be installed at least 40 metres in advance of every speed breaker to give drivers sufficient reaction time.
• Colourization / Painting: Speed breakers must be painted with alternating black and white bands (or black and yellow bands) across the full width of the road to provide additional visual warning to approaching drivers.
• Night Visibility — Reflective Paint: For better night visibility, thermoplastic paint and road studs (cat-eyes / embedded cat-eyes) must be used on or alongside the speed breaker markings.
• Luminous / Reflective Strips: It is desirable that markings be applied using luminous paint or luminous strips to ensure the speed breaker is visible in low-light conditions.

The guidelines further emphasize that ‘speed breakers are not intended as a substitute for proper mandatory, warning or informatory signs but are meant only to draw attention of drivers to a possible hazard ahead.’ An unmarked or unpainted speed breaker is, therefore, legally impermissible.

IV.   Judicial Precedents

A.   Bombay High Court — Kewal Semlani v. Commissioner of Bombay & Others

This is the landmark judicial pronouncement on speed breaker standards in India, and has been widely cited by other High Courts. The Bombay High Court examined the IRC guidelines in detail and issued comprehensive directions applicable across the State of Maharashtra. The key directions issued were:

• Construction: All speed breakers henceforth to be constructed strictly in accordance with IRC specifications. Existing non-compliant speed breakers to be demolished and rebuilt as per IRC guidelines, with prior police approval.
• Warning Signs: Drivers must be warned of the presence of speed breakers by posting suitable advance warning signs.
• Colourization: Speed breakers must be painted with ‘alternate black and white bands to give additional visual warning.’ For better night visibility, markings must be in ‘luminous paint / luminous strips.’ Embedded cat-eyes may also be used to enhance night visibility.
• Approval Process: The Director General of Police to instruct all Police Commissioners and Superintendents that no speed breaker shall be constructed without police permission.
• NHAI Compliance: The National Highways Authority of India was also directed to abide by IRC guidelines within the State of Maharashtra.

The Bombay High Court’s directions in Kewal Semlani have been treated as the foundational precedent for speed breaker regulation across India.

B.   Allahabad High Court — Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

In a PIL before the Allahabad High Court addressing the issue of fatal road accidents caused by speed breakers in Uttar Pradesh, the Court expressly noted:

It is apposite to mention that fatal accidents occur due to speed breakers in night when the roads are deserted and a bit careless / negligence of two-wheeler riders and drivers of four-wheelers result in fatal accidents. Such accidents also occur due to lack of proper warning signs/light as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules therein.

The Allahabad High Court found that the directions issued by the Bombay High Court in Kewal Semlani v. Commissioner of Bombay could be implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh without any impediment and endorsed those directions for application in Uttar Pradesh. The Court further relied on the data compiled in the annexure to the IRC guidelines showing 3,192 fatalities due to speed breakers in Uttar Pradesh in 2014 and 1,654 in 2015, underscoring the urgency of enforcement.

C.   High Court of Andhra Pradesh — WP (PIL) No. 76 of 2025, Thandave Yogesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

In this recent PIL before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioner brought to the Court’s notice how unscientific and improperly marked road humps were causing severe spinal injuries and had contributed to hundreds of fatal accidents across the State. The Court took judicial cognizance of the fact that while the State Government had previously issued internal memos regarding the removal of illegal speed breakers, enforcement on the ground was wholly lacking.

The Court accordingly directed the State Government to enforce IRC standards for all speed breakers strictly, in ‘letter and spirit.’ All traffic-calming measures were ordered to adhere to the specific height and width dimensions prescribed by the IRC in order to protect both vehicle integrity and commuter health. The judgment reinforced the judicial consensus across India that IRC compliance is not optional and that State Governments bear a legal duty to enforce these standards.

D.   Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has also addressed the issue of unauthorised and non-compliant speed breakers within the National Capital Territory. The Court has mandated the immediate removal of all unauthorised speed breakers that were built without official police approval or fail to meet established safety standards. Civic agencies have been placed under strict orders to ensure that all traffic-calming measures within Delhi align with official regulatory guidelines and are accompanied by proper warning signage. The Court set a firm deadline for compliance, threatening legal consequences for non-removal of non-compliant road hazards — reinforcing that illegal speed breakers without proper markings are not merely technical violations but active threats to public safety.

V.   Delhi-Specific Regulatory Framework

A.   Applicable Authorities

In Delhi, the responsibility for construction, maintenance, and regulation of speed breakers is distributed across multiple authorities depending on the classification of the road:

• Public Works Department (PWD), GNCTD: Responsible for State highways and major arterial roads within Delhi.
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD): Responsible for roads within the municipal area.
• Delhi Traffic Police: Exercises regulatory oversight and issues approvals for the construction of speed breakers.
• National Highways Authority of India (NHAI): Responsible for National Highways passing through Delhi.

B.   Regulatory Requirements Applicable in Delhi

No speed breaker in Delhi may be constructed on a public road without the prior approval of the Delhi Traffic Police, in consonance with the directions issued by the Delhi High Court and in line with the approach adopted in Kewal Semlani. All speed breakers, whether newly constructed or existing, must conform to the following:

• Design Compliance: Full compliance with IRC:99-2018 specifications including prescribed height, width, shape, and material requirements.
• Colourization: Alternate black and white bands painted across the full width of the hump.
• Night Visibility: Reflective/thermoplastic paint, embedded cat-eyes, or luminous strips mandatory for all speed breakers, given the documented incidence of night-time fatalities.
• Advance Warning Signage: ‘Hump Ahead’ warning sign to be placed 40 metres in advance, as prescribed by IRC:67-1977.
• Removal of Unauthorized Structures: The Delhi High Court has directed civic agencies to identify and demolish all speed breakers constructed without official approval or not meeting IRC specifications.

Parliamentary data placed before the Rajya Sabha (Ministry of Home Affairs, November 2016) recorded 41 fatalities in Delhi due to speed breakers in 2015 alone, emphasising the gravity of the enforcement gap in the National Capital Territory.

VI.   Practical Compliance Standards for Colourization and Marking

Based on the statutory provisions, IRC guidelines, and judicial precedents discussed above, a legally compliant speed breaker in Delhi (and India generally) must satisfy the following minimum standards:

VII.   Conclusion

The legal framework governing the colourization and marking of speed breakers in India is clear, comprehensive, and judicially enforced. The IRC guidelines — adopted by MoRTH and endorsed by multiple High Courts from the Bombay High Court in Kewal Semlani to the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thandave Yogesh (2025) — establish that alternating colour bands, reflective/luminous markings for night visibility, and mandatory advance warning signage are non-negotiable legal requirements, not merely engineering recommendations.

In the specific context of Delhi, the Delhi High Court’s directions mandating removal of unauthorized speed breakers, combined with the multi-agency regulatory structure (PWD, MCD, Delhi Traffic Police), create a clear compliance framework. The persistent gap between the law on paper and enforcement on the ground — as evidenced by the 41 Delhi fatalities recorded in 2015 — underscores the continued need for judicial vigilance and rigorous administrative enforcement.

Any authority, contractor, or body constructing or maintaining a speed breaker must ensure full compliance with IRC:99-2018 specifications on design, colourization, reflective marking, and advance signage — failure to do so exposes them to legal liability under the Motor Vehicles Act and adverse judicial action as consistently demonstrated by the courts.

Sources & References

1.  Allahabad High Court Judgment (PIL): https://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadOriginalHCJudgmentDocument.do?translatedJudgmentID=12840

2.  Andhra Pradesh High Court — WP (PIL) No. 76 of 2025, Thandave Yogesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

3.  Times of India Report on AP HC Judgment: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/enforce-irc-speed-breaker-norms-high-court-tells-govt/articleshow/123324527.cms

4.  Ministry of Home Affairs, Parliament Reply (Rajya Sabha, 16 November 2016) — Speed Breaker Fatality Data

5.  Indian Roads Congress — IRC:99-1988 / IRC:99-2018 (Guidelines for Traffic Calming Measures)

6.  Bombay High Court — Kewal Semlani v. Commissioner of Bombay & Others

7.  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 112 and 116