Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has criticised the Centre for framing the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026 under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act without publicity, calling it an “unannounced law”, and noted that the scheme leaves out victims of uninsured vehicles. It directed wide publicity and a concrete rollout plan.
Following the Supreme Court's order of 28 April 2025, the Centre told the Court in contempt proceedings that it had framed the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026 under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Key Question Before the Court
Has the Centre adequately implemented interim relief for motor accident victims as directed?
From Paper to Practice
As reported, the Bench described the scheme as an “unannounced law” and noted that it excludes victims of uninsured vehicles. It directed wide publicity and a concrete plan for rollout by the next date.
This report is based on a news account of the hearing; the written order was not read.
What the Court Actually Held
- Wide publicity of the Interim Relief Scheme directed.
- A concrete rollout plan to be placed before the Court by the next date.
- The exclusion of uninsured-vehicle victims flagged for attention.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It matters directly for MACT practitioners and accident victims.
- It pushes the State to make interim relief accessible.
- It highlights the gap for victims of uninsured vehicles.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants' Counsel
- Track the scheme's notification and rollout to seek interim relief for clients.
- Raise the uninsured-vehicle gap where relevant.
For Insurers and States
- Prepare for implementation and publicity obligations.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 164A interim relief scheme exists.
- The Court wants it publicised.
- Uninsured-vehicle victims are left out.
- Rollout plan required.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, framed under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It said the scheme was unannounced and excluded victims of uninsured vehicles.
No. It is a hearing in contempt proceedings; the matter continues.
Conclusion
The hearing pushes interim relief for road accident victims from paper into practice.
Practical takeaway: MACT lawyers should watch for the scheme's publication and rollout to secure early relief for clients.