Content
Household Income Survey, 2026
Contempt of Court and Judicial Authority
The Forgotten Internationalists
India among countries with highest yield loss due to human-induced land degradation
3rd Home for Cheetahs in India – Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh
India’s 2024 Road Accident Report
Household Income Survey, 2026
Why in News?
The Government of India is set to conduct the first-ever Household Income Survey (HIS) in 2026 to directly capture income data from Indian households — unlike previous surveys which relied on proxies like consumption or employment data.
It aims to provide granular, policy-relevant details into income levels, distribution, class dynamics, and livelihood patterns across India.
Relevance:
• GS-3 (Economy): Enhances precision in income-based poverty estimation, inequality mapping, and welfare targeting through direct household income data.
• GS-2 (Governance): Strengthens evidence-based policy formulation and social sector planning under MoSPI and NSO.
• GS-3 (Inclusive Growth): Facilitates better DBT targeting, financial inclusion, and income-linked welfare metrics.
• GS-3 (Statistics & Data Governance): Modernises India’s statistical architecture by integrating HIS with HCES and NDAP for data transparency.
Context & Need
Data gap: India lacks a comprehensive, nationally representative dataset on household income.
Existing surveys’ limitations:
Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) – focuses on wages & employment, not household-level income.
Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES) – infers income via expenditure; less accurate for inequality or savings estimation.
RBI Consumer Confidence Survey – measures sentiment on income trends, not actual data.
Policy vacuum: Reliable income data are vital for designing targeted welfare schemes, poverty estimates, and inequality mapping.
Objectives of the 2026 Survey
To directly measure household income — from all sources (salaries, self-employment, agriculture, pensions, transfers, etc.).
To map the relationship between income and household characteristics — occupation, caste, gender, region, and assets.
To understand income volatility, indebtedness, and loan repayment burden in an EMI-driven economy.
To test claims like “Doubling Farmers’ Income” and evaluate outcomes of state and central welfare schemes.
Survey Design & Methodology
Conducted by: National Statistical Office (NSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
Scope: Urban & rural households across all states/UTs.
Data modules:
Income – Salaries, allowances (bonus, overtime, stock options, leave encashment), self-employment earnings, crop sales, etc.
Expenses – Seeds, raw materials, rents, repairs, and maintenance (mirroring HCES structure).
Transfers & Support – Pensions, remittances, alimony, and welfare receipts (e.g., Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam in Tamil Nadu).
Assets & Liabilities – Property ownership, landholding, dwelling size/type, loans, interest payments.
Pilot Survey Insights (August 2025)
Pilot coverage: Randomly selected households nationwide.
Key findings:
~95% respondents found questions on income “sensitive.”
Refusal rate highest for income-tax related questions.
Affluent households more reluctant; rural households needed fewer clarifications.
Respondents often overstated expenditure or underestimated savings/interest income.
Government response:
Awareness drives, media outreach, and local-language enumerators.
Considering self-compilation forms for gated and affluent communities.
Expected Outputs
Granular income mapping by:
Sector – agriculture, manufacturing, services.
Region – urban vs rural, state-level disparities.
Social group – caste, religion, occupation.
Economic indicators generated:
Gini coefficient for income inequality.
Income-to-loan repayment ratio.
Income–consumption correlation and profit margins for self-employed.
Gender gap in income by employment category.
Enables micro-level poverty mapping beyond consumption-based estimates.
Policy Significance
For Government:
Empirical foundation for Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) targeting, tax reform, and social security design.
Enables district-level income data, improving NITI Aayog’s SDG localization and state welfare prioritization.
For Researchers:
Fills critical data gap for income inequality studies (replacing proxy datasets like CMIE-CPHS).
Allows integration with HCES for comprehensive welfare analysis.
Challenges & Limitations
Privacy concerns: Reluctance to share income/tax details.
Recall bias: Respondents unable to remember exact income sources or asset returns.
Data accuracy: Misreporting, underestimation of informal sector income.
Enumerator training: Ensuring sensitivity, accuracy, and uniformity across diverse contexts.
Affluent households’ participation: Requires alternative digital/self-reporting mechanisms.
Way Forward
Strengthen trust via local enumerators, digital anonymity, and awareness on data use.
Triangulate data with tax, EPFO, PM-KISAN, and GSTN databases.
Synchronize HIS with HCES (2025–26) to cross-verify consumption–income dynamics.
Institutionalize periodic surveys (every 3–5 years) for trend monitoring.
Integrate with National Data & Analytics Platform (NDAP) for open-access insights.
Key Takeaway
The Household Income Survey, 2026 marks a paradigm shift from proxy-based welfare estimation to direct income measurement, aiming to equip India with the most precise picture of household economics since Independence — vital for inclusive, data-led governance.
Contempt of Court and Judicial Authority
Why in News?
A recent controversy arose over alleged derogatory remarks made against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Supreme Court, sparking debate on whether such statements amount to criminal contempt of court.
The remarks, widely circulated on media and social media, are being viewed as potentially obstructing the administration of justice and eroding the judiciary’s institutional authority.
Relevance:
• GS-2 (Polity): Pertains to constitutional provisions under Articles 129, 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; upholds judicial independence.
• GS-2 (Governance): Balances freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with institutional accountability and rule of law.
• GS-2 (Judiciary): Demonstrates the evolving judicial stance on fair criticism, media conduct, and protection of judicial dignity.
Constitutional & Legal Basis
Article 19(2): Allows “reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech for, among other grounds, contempt of court.
Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court a Court of Record with inherent power to punish for its contempt.
Article 215: Grants the same power to High Courts.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Provides statutory clarity and procedure for contempt proceedings.
Types of Contempt (as per the 1971 Act)
Civil Contempt (Section 2(b))
Definition: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, direction, writ, or undertaking given to a court.
Example: Non-compliance with a court order to pay maintenance or reinstate employment.
Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c))
Definition: Publication or act that —
i) Scandalises or lowers the authority of any court,
ii) Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or
iii) Interferes with administration of justice.
Scope: Goes beyond disobedience — covers speech, writing, signs, or conduct that damages judicial credibility.
Key Judicial Interpretations
Fair criticism ≠ Contempt:
Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (1952) – Fair and reasoned criticism of a judgment is permissible; personal attacks are not.
Exercise with restraint:
Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002) – Contempt power must be used sparingly and only in clear cases of violation.
Public speech as criminal contempt:
M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015) – Use of abusive language against the judiciary in public constitutes criminal contempt.
Recent reaffirmation:
Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (2025) – Purpose of contempt law is to uphold the administration of justice, not to suppress legitimate dissent.
Procedure for Initiating Contempt
Suo motu action: Courts (SC or HC) can initiate proceedings themselves.
Third-party initiation: Requires consent of:
Attorney General (AGI) – for Supreme Court.
Advocate General (AG) – for respective High Court.
Punishments (under Section 12 of the Act):
Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or
Fine up to ₹2,000, or both (with possibility of discharge on apology).
Rationale & Relevance
Protects judicial independence: Maintains public confidence in the justice system.
Ensures effective administration of justice: Prevents disruptions or undue influence during proceedings.
Preserves constitutional morality: Judiciary’s authority is central to checks and balances in a democracy.
Contempt vs. Freedom of Speech
Balance of rights:
While free expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute.
The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, must remain insulated from malicious or false attacks that weaken institutional trust.
Law Commission (274th Report, 2018): Retaining criminal contempt provisions is essential to preserve respect for judicial authority and rule of law.
Comparative perspective:
UK abolished “scandalising the court” in 2013; India retains it due to the higher public trust placed in the judiciary and the fragile rule-of-law ecosystem.
Contemporary Concerns
Social media amplification: Digital platforms can spread defamatory or misleading content rapidly, intensifying contemptuous impact.
Public misperception: Criticism often crosses into vilification, confusing accountability with contempt.
Institutional legitimacy: Repeated public disparagement can erode faith in judicial impartiality and weaken constitutional governance.
Balancing Critique & Contempt
Permissible Criticism
Contemptuous Expression
Academic/legal critique of a judgment
Personal attacks on judges
Highlighting judicial errors or bias through evidence
Accusations of corruption without proof
Debating judicial philosophy
Mocking or demeaning the judiciary’s authority
Advocacy for reform
Campaigns that obstruct ongoing cases
Way Forward
Promote judicial literacy: Public understanding of judicial processes can prevent uninformed criticism.
Encourage responsible media conduct: Enforce ethical reporting codes for judiciary-related matters.
Develop social media protocols for contempt and misinformation.
Codify fair criticism standards to demarcate dissent from defamation.
Regular review of contempt powers to align with evolving democratic norms.
Key Takeaway
The Contempt of Court mechanism is not meant to shield the judiciary from scrutiny but to safeguard the integrity of justice delivery.
In an era of digital expression, freedom with responsibility is vital to maintain the balance between democratic dissent and judicial dignity.
The Forgotten Internationalists
Context
The 2026 election for the next UN Secretary-General (UNSG) comes at a time when the UN faces a crisis of credibility and relevance.
Rise of populist, ultra-nationalist governments worldwide is undermining multilateralism and the rules-based global order.
Reflection on figures like U Thant (Burma) and K.M. Panikkar (India) highlights the role of the Global South in shaping internationalism during the Cold War and decolonisation era.
Relevance:
• GS-2 (International Relations): Analyses UN reforms, Global South diplomacy, and India’s historical role in shaping postcolonial internationalism.
• GS-1 (Modern History): Examines figures like U Thant and K.M. Panikkar in Cold War and decolonisation contexts.
The UN’s Current Crisis
Erosion of Multilateralism:
Populist leaders prioritise national sovereignty over collective global solutions, weakening cooperation in areas like climate change, migration, and conflict resolution.
Power Imbalance:
UNSC remains dominated by the P5 (US, UK, France, Russia, China) — representing the 1945 world order, not the 21st-century realities.
Legitimacy Deficit:
Growing disillusionment due to UN inaction on conflicts (Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan) and failure to reform veto and membership structures.
Funding Constraints:
Over 75% of the UN’s budget comes from less than 10 countries, allowing political leverage over UN operations.
U Thant’s Legacy: Global South Diplomacy
Tenure: 1961–1971 (First Asian and non-European UNSG).
Crisis Management:
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): Brokered backchannel diplomacy between the US and USSR, averting nuclear war.
Indo-Pak War (1965): Facilitated ceasefire and supported the Tashkent Agreement (1966).
Congo Crisis: Ensured UN intervention supported decolonisation efforts.
Institutional Reforms:
Advocated financial autonomy for the UN; urged big powers to share the fiscal burden.
Championed Afro-Asian solidarity and supported anti-colonial movements.
Ideological Position:
Argued for “world citizenship” over narrow nationalism — “Patriotism is good, but allegiance to the world community is essential.”
Supported recognition of People’s Republic of China in 1971, showing foresight in global power balance.
Challenges:
US opposition during Vietnam War; accused of bias for criticising American aggression.
Faced Western backlash for ordering UN peacekeepers to withdraw in the 1967 Six-Day War.
K.M. Panikkar’s Vision: India’s Civilisational Diplomacy
Background: Historian, freedom fighter, and diplomat; served as Ambassador to China (1948–55) and Egypt.
Worldview:
Advocated an “Asian Resurgence” based on shared civilisational heritage and anti-colonial solidarity.
Coined the idea of India’s maritime power as a determinant of strategic autonomy — precursor to India’s Indo-Pacific policy.
Diplomatic Contributions:
Supported recognition of Communist China (1949) much before the West.
Shaped India’s role during Suez Canal Crisis (1956) — upholding anti-imperialism.
Opposed creation of Israel at the UNGA (1948) but later urged India to establish relations pragmatically.
Criticisms:
Misjudged China’s Tibet occupation (1950), leading to Sardar Patel’s reprimand.
Accused of being overly conciliatory (“gone native”) — yet represented India’s non-aligned realism.
Comparative Overview
Aspect
U Thant (UNSG)
K.M. Panikkar (India’s Diplomat)
Origin
Burma (Myanmar), Global South
India, Postcolonial Civilisational State
Role
Multilateral leadership
National diplomacy within global framework
Approach
Peace diplomacy, decolonisation, moral persuasion
Realist diplomacy rooted in Asian identity
Conflict Mediation
Cuban Missile Crisis, Indo-Pak War
Tibet issue, Suez, recognition of China
Legacy
UN reformer and symbol of Global South assertion
Architect of India’s strategic thought and maritime doctrine
Relevance Today
Resurgence of Nationalism: Echoes Thant’s warning — “My country, right or wrong” mindset is replacing international solidarity.
Reclaiming Global South Voices:
G-77 and BRICS+ are modern successors to the Afro-Asian internationalism Thant envisioned.
India’s “Voice of the Global South Summit” (2023) mirrors Panikkar’s civilisational outreach.
UN Reform Debate:
Need for expansion of UNSC membership (India, Japan, Brazil, African Union).
Calls for veto reform, financial independence, and revitalisation of UNGA authority.
Lessons for Future UNSG (2026):
Must blend moral authority (like Thant) with strategic pragmatism (like Panikkar).
Reorient the UN toward equitable multipolarity rather than P5 dominance.
India among countries with highest yield loss due to human-induced land degradation
Why in News ?
FAO’s “State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) 2025” report (Nov 3, 2025) warns of a global land degradation crisis affecting 1.7 billion people.
India is among the countries with the highest agricultural yield losses due to human-induced land degradation — a major threat to food security, ecosystem stability, and poverty alleviation.
Relevance:
• GS-3 (Environment): Relates to land degradation, desertification, and India’s commitments under UNCCD and SDG 15.3.
• GS-3 (Agriculture): Examines yield loss, soil fertility decline, and sustainable land management practices.
• GS-3 (Economy): Links degradation with reduced productivity, rural distress, and food security threats.
Key Global Findings
Land degradation has reduced agricultural productivity across 1.7 billion people globally.
90% of global deforestation driven by agricultural expansion — mainly cropland conversion and grazing expansion.
Between 2001–2023:
Total agricultural land area fell by 78 million hectares (mha) (−2%).
Cropland expanded by 78 mha, while meadows/pastures shrank by 151 mha.
Regional patterns:
Sub-Saharan Africa: +69 mha cropland, −72 mha forest.
Latin America: +25 mha cropland, −85 mha forest.
3.6 mha of croplands are abandoned annually, largely due to soil degradation and unsustainable farming.
India-Specific Insights
India among the worst-hit nations in yield loss due to anthropogenic (human-induced) land degradation.
High population density + intensive agriculture (Punjab, Haryana, UP plains) → rapid soil organic carbon loss, nutrient depletion, and salinisation.
Desertification Atlas (ISRO 2021):
29.7% of India’s total land (≈ 97.8 mha) degraded.
Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand — major contributors.
Wheat yield loss projected to be 6–9% by 2040 due to combined soil and climate stress.
Land degradation linked to water overuse — India extracts ~230 billion m³ groundwater annually, the world’s highest.
Drivers of Human-Induced Land Degradation
Agricultural Expansion:
Conversion of forests to croplands; intensive monocropping.
Responsible for ~90% of deforestation globally.
Unsustainable Input Use:
Overuse of fertilisers (India: ~165 kg/ha vs. global avg 120 kg/ha).
Decline in soil organic carbon (SOC) by up to 40% in Indo-Gangetic belt.
Overgrazing and Pasture Decline:
Global pasture loss: 151 mha since 2001.
Urbanisation and Infrastructure:
In India, ~1.2 mha agricultural land lost yearly to non-farm use.
Economic and Food Security Impact
Degraded croplands = reduced productivity, lower farm income, and greater food insecurity.
Reversing 10% of human-induced degradation can restore production to feed 154 million people/year globally.
Restoring abandoned croplands could feed 292–476 million people.
FAO identifies 47 million stunted children under age 5 living in degradation hotspots (mostly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa).
Inequality in Land Use and Resource Access
Farm size disparities amplify degradation and adaptation gaps:
85% of global farms <2 ha, cultivating just 9% of farmland.
0.1% of large farms (>1000 ha) control ~50% of farmland.
Large farms:
High-tech input use maintains yields but masks degradation.
Example: Europe, North America — productivity maintained at rising ecological cost.
Small farms:
Struggle with degraded soils, low technology, and limited capital.
Yet supply 16% of global calories, 12% of protein, 9% of fats — crucial for local food diversity.
India’s Policy Response
National Action Plan on Desertification and Drought (NAPDD) – aligns with UNCCD goals.
India’s Commitment:
Restore 26 million ha degraded land by 2030 (UNCCD COP14, New Delhi 2019).
Integrate Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) in agriculture, forestry, and watershed programmes.
Flagship Initiatives:
Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) – water-use efficiency.
Soil Health Card Scheme – nutrient balance.
National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) – soil organic matter management.
Green India Mission – forest restoration for ecosystem balance.
Private-sector participation emerging in soil carbon markets and regenerative agriculture pilots.
Global and Multilateral Linkages
UNCCD (1994): Framework for combating desertification and promoting sustainable land use.
FAO, UNEP, and IPBES assessments: Link land degradation to biodiversity loss and climate vulnerability.
SDG 15.3: Target to achieve Land Degradation Neutral World (LDNW) by 2030.
FAO warns global land productivity is declining on 25% of agricultural land, threatening SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
Way Forward
Integrated Land-Use Planning: Balance agriculture, forestry, and water use.
Agroecological Practices: Crop rotation, conservation tillage, bio-fertilisers.
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): Incentivise soil and forest conservation.
Tech-enabled Monitoring: Remote sensing (ISRO’s Bhuvan platform) and AI-based soil diagnostics.
South-South Cooperation: India can lead Global South collaboration under UNCCD and FAO platforms.
3rd Home for Cheetahs in India – Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh
Why in News ?
Madhya Pradesh government is preparing Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary (Sagar–Damoh–Narsinghpur belt) as India’s third cheetah site after Kuno National Park and Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary.
The first batch of cheetahs to Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary is expected in 2026, but the major challenge is presence of ~25 tigers already in Nauradehi, posing risks to cheetah adaptation and survival.
Relevance:
• GS-3 (Environment & Biodiversity): Concerns species reintroduction, habitat restoration, and India’s cheetah meta-population model.
• GS-3 (Conservation): Aligns with Green India Mission and UNCCD land restoration goals.
• GS-3 (Geography): Studies central Indian landscape connectivity — Satpura–Panna–Bandhavgarh corridor.
• GS-3 (Ecology & Sustainable Development): Promotes eco-tourism and community-led conservation for livelihood diversification.
Background: Project Cheetah
Launched: 2022; world’s first intercontinental large carnivore reintroduction project.
Objective: Reintroduce Asiatic cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus) to India after their extinction in 1952.
Implementation:
Led by National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), MoEFCC, and WII in collaboration with Cheetah Conservation Fund (Namibia).
Import sources: Namibia (2022, 8 cheetahs) and South Africa (2023, 12 cheetahs).
Sites:
Kuno National Park (Sheopur, MP) – 748 sq km
Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary (Mandsaur–Neemuch, MP) – under preparation
Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary (Sagar, Damoh, Narsinghpur, MP) – proposed new site
About Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary
Established: 1975; located between Satpura and Vindhya ranges.
Area: ~1,197 sq km (core), part of a 5500 sq km landscape including buffer and corridors.
Eco-significance:
Forms a corridor between Panna Tiger Reserve and Satpura Tiger Reserve, and indirectly connects Bandhavgarh–Rani Durgavati–Satpura landscape.
Potential “stepping stone” for meta-population connectivity across central India.
Habitat: Dry deciduous forests, grasslands, scrub, rivers (Bewa, Kopra).
Wildlife: Tiger (~25 individuals), leopard, chital, chinkara, nilgai, wild boar, hyena, crocodile.
Prey base (2020 census):
4,788 nilgai, 1,796 chital, 1,556 chinkara.
Average prey density: ~15.8 animals/sq km, comparable to Kuno’s carrying capacity.
Cheetah Reintroduction Plan in Nauradehi
Aim: Establish a viable third cheetah population in central India to reduce overdependence on Kuno.
Habitat readiness:
Good grassland quality (crucial for cheetah hunting).
Existing infrastructure and staff from tiger management.
Challenges:
Presence of 25 tigers – potential predator conflict and competition.
Relocation of local villages: 93 identified; 44 already shifted.
Need for ₹8 crore (₹5.2 crore sanctioned) for habitat preparation and fencing.
Water scarcity, dry deciduous habitat limit prey in dry months.
Mitigation:
Create large enclosures (50–52 sq km) for soft release.
Strengthen prey density and water availability.
Relocate remaining human settlements before cheetah arrival (by 2026).
Ecological & Administrative Significance
Acts as a biological corridor within the Satpura–Panna–Bandhavgarh landscape, strengthening genetic flow.
Opportunity to convert a neglected sanctuary into a global conservation site.
Provides habitat redundancy – critical after cheetah mortalities in Kuno (9 deaths in 2023).
May promote eco-tourism and conservation-linked livelihood for 50+ surrounding villages.
Challenges & Concerns
Predator coexistence: Cheetahs vulnerable to tiger and leopard attacks — need isolation enclosures.
Human–wildlife conflict: Local grazing and fuelwood dependence persists.
Climate & resource stress: Dry zones face summer prey depletion and fire risk.
Connectivity vs. safety trade-off: Corridors beneficial for genetics but increase predator overlap.
Financial & administrative delays: State demand for additional funding from NTCA.
Comparative Data
Parameter
Kuno NP
Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary
Nauradehi WLS
Area (sq km)
748
368 (core)
1,197
Apex predators
None initially
Few leopards
25 tigers
Villages relocated
24
19 (in process)
44 done, 49 pending
Habitat type
Grassland–deciduous
Semi-arid scrub
Dry deciduous grassland
Prey base
~3,500 ungulates
Moderate
~8,000 ungulates
Way Forward
Habitat zoning: Demarcate cheetah-exclusive and tiger-dominant zones.
Soft-release strategy: Gradual acclimatisation of cheetahs in fenced areas.
Community-based conservation: Compensation, eco-tourism jobs, and grazing alternatives.
Integrated landscape management: Link Satpura–Panna–Bandhavgarh corridor under a single conservation cluster.
Monitoring via e-surveillance: Use drones, camera traps, and satellite collars.
Broader Context
India aims for a self-sustaining population of ~50 cheetahs across multiple sites by 2035.
The meta-population model (similar to South Africa’s system) will ensure genetic exchange and species viability.
Rewilding degraded grasslands aligns with India’s UNCCD land restoration target (26 mha by 2030).
India’s 2024 Road Accident Report
Why in News?
Provisional 2024 report by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) indicates that India’s crash toll may surpass 2023 once West Bengal data is added.
Despite declines in nine states, national road fatalities remain among the highest globally.
Relevance:
• GS-3 (Infrastructure & Transport): Evaluates safety performance under MoRTH, Motor Vehicles Act, and blackspot rectification policy.
• GS-2 (Governance): Reflects Centre–State coordination and institutional accountability in road safety management.
• GS-3 (Disaster Management): Links accident prevention, emergency response, and trauma care with SDG 3.6 (reduce deaths by 50% by 2030).
National Overview (2024 vs 2023)
2024 (Provisional): 4.73 lakh accidents, 1.70 lakh deaths.
2023: 4.80 lakh accidents, 1.73 lakh deaths.
Trend: National totals appear slightly lower, but inclusion of West Bengal (13,795 accidents, 6,027 deaths in 2023) will likely push 2024 above 2023.
Long-term trend: Year-on-year increase in crashes since 2022, except during COVID-19 years (2020–21).
Global context: India ranks #1 worldwide in road deaths, ahead of China and the US (World Road Statistics, IRF).
State-wise Highlights (2024)
Top 5 States by Road Accidents
Rank
State
Accidents (2023)
Accidents (2024*)
Change
1
Tamil Nadu
67,213
67,526
↑ 0.5%
2
Madhya Pradesh
55,327
56,669
↑ 2.4%
3
Kerala
48,091
48,789
↑ 1.4%
4
Uttar Pradesh
44,534
46,052
↑ 3.4%
5
Karnataka
43,440
43,062
↓ 0.9%
Top 5 States by Road Fatalities
Rank
State
Fatalities (2023)
Fatalities (2024*)
Change
1
Uttar Pradesh
23,652
24,118
↑ 2.0%
2
Tamil Nadu
18,347
18,449
↑ 0.6%
3
Maharashtra
15,366
15,715
↑ 2.3%
4
Madhya Pradesh
13,798
14,791
↑ 7.2%
5
Karnataka
12,321
12,390
↑ 0.6%
Positive Performers – States Showing Dual Decline
9 States/UTs recorded fall in both accidents & fatalities:
Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, J&K, Manipur, Nagaland.
Examples:
Gujarat: Accidents ↓ 4.6% (16,349→15,588); Fatalities ↓ 1.7% (7,854→7,717).
Haryana: Accidents ↓ 6.3%; Fatalities ↓ 5.6%.
Punjab: Accidents ↓ 3.3%; Fatalities ↓ 1.4%.
Nagaland: Accidents ↓ 57% (303→129).
Mixed Trends – Fall in One Metric, Rise in Another
State
Accidents
Fatalities
Observation
Andhra Pradesh
↓ (19,949→19,557)
↑ (8,137→8,346)
Higher severity
Karnataka
↓
↑
Severity rise
Kerala
↑
↓
Better post-crash response
Tripura
↑ marginally
↓
Improved safety
Delhi
↓
↑
Rising fatal crashes
Ladakh
↓
↑
High-altitude risk profile
Accident Severity (Fatalities per 100 Accidents)
Uttar Pradesh: Highest severity – 52.37% (1 death in 2 accidents).
Kerala: Lowest severity – ~7.6% (1 death in 13 accidents).
Rajasthan: Third highest severity – 47.47%.
Gujarat: Slight rise from 48.04% to 49.51%.
Telangana: Largest improvement – severity dropped from 33.4% to 30.6%.
Structural Insights
Over 60% of fatalities occur on National & State Highways.
Human error contributes to ~70% of accidents (speeding, distraction, fatigue).
2-wheeler riders account for ~44% of deaths, pedestrians ~19%, cyclists ~4%.
Seatbelt & helmet non-compliance remain the biggest risk multipliers.
Rural roads: ~60% of total crashes but only ~45% of registered vehicles.
Road Safety Interventions (MoRTH & States)
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019: Stricter penalties, hit-and-run compensation (₹2 lakh).
National Road Safety Policy: 4Es – Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency care.
Blackspot Rectification Programme: 789 blackspots identified; 60% under correction (2024).
Good Samaritan Guidelines (2022): Legal protection to helpers of crash victims.
Integrated Road Accident Database (iRAD): Data-driven interventions rolled out in 28 states.
Swachhata Pakhwada–Road Safety Week 2024: Behavioural campaigns on helmets, seatbelts, and drink-driving.
Global & Comparative Context
India accounts for 11% of global road deaths, despite having only 1% of global vehicle population.
WHO Global Status Report (2023): India’s fatality rate – 12.1 deaths per 1 lakh population (global avg ~9).
UN Target: Reduce road deaths by 50% by 2030 (SDG 3.6) – India far off-track.
Key Concerns
Persisting urban–rural divide in enforcement and emergency response.
Underreporting by states (~15–20% gap vs NCRB data).
Delayed trauma care: 30–40% deaths occur within 1 hour (“golden hour loss”).
Low deterrence: Poor conviction rate in traffic offences.
Funding gaps in State Road Safety Funds (utilisation <60%).
Way Forward
Engineering: Crash barriers, rumble strips, lane segregation, better signage.
Enforcement: AI-driven e-challan, speed cameras, night patrols.
Education: Behavioural change campaigns, school road safety curriculum.
Emergency Response: Expand NHAI’s 1033 helpline, integrate with eSanjeevani & 108 ambulance network.
Accountability: Annual State Road Safety Index to link fund allocation with performance.
Urban Mobility Planning: Safer pedestrian & cyclist infrastructure under Gati Shakti.