New Delhi, April 11: The Supreme Court appears to agree with those who think the government isn’t doing enough to crack down on rash driving that kills and maims thousands every year.

A two-judge bench today threw up its hands when asked to pass a directive to curb street accidents, saying it was no use since governments tended to ignore court orders on the subject.

It said the country already had “comprehensive” road safety laws but only the government could enforce them. And if the laws had loopholes, it was “up to the legislature” to amend them.

People are also murdered, so should the court issue directives that murders should not be committed, Justice Markandey Katju asked in obvious frustration.

The observations come a week after a single bus accident claimed 21 lives in Calcutta, turning the spotlight on how the law is ignored as licences are bought and loopholes allow rash drivers to slip through.

The government sits on its promises to ban the commission system of paying bus drivers — the chief reason for reckless races on Calcutta’s streets — and political patronage prevents action against bus syndicates and unions.

The bench said: “If the legislature or the executive are not functioning properly, it is for the people to correct the defect by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections… or by… peaceful demonstrations and agitation.”

The petitioner had sought a directive to the Centre to enact a law outlining drivers’ responsibilities, maintenance of roads and traffic signs, and the rules to be followed by pedestrians and non-motorised traffic.

But Justice Katju and Justice H.K. Sema, who dismissed the petition, said the Motor Vehicles Act was good enough and cited how little the courts could do.

“For instance, the directives issued by this court regarding road safety in M.C. Mehta’s case hardly seem to have had any effect because every day we read in the newspapers or see the news on TV about Blueline buses killing or injuring people (in Delhi).”

The National Crime Records Bureau says the accident rate rose by 7 per cent in 2006 over the 2005 figures. Activist H.D. Shourie’s NGO, Common Cause, had filed the public interest litigation four years ago but it had been pending since then.

Justice Katju, an advocate of “judicial restraint”, said intervening on accidents would violate the principle of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary.

“Courts are not the remedy for all ills in society,” he said, wondering if judges could root out corruption and unemployment, too.

Such a view of the judiciary “debilitates their (citizens’) will and makes them believe they can solve their problems… not by own struggles and creativity but by filing a PIL”.

Besides, he said, technical matters were best left to administrators.