RTOs Aid Bus Operators in Bribery Scam: Luxury Logos on Economic Chassis

Sleeper buses have become the lifeline of long-distance road travel across India, connecting cities overnight while offering affordable comfort to millions. Yet, behind the tinted windows and plush interiors lies a growing safety crisis—one marked by rule violations, forged compliance, and unchecked state-level loopholes.

Recent discussions among transport experts have shed light on alarming gaps in the design and inspection of sleeper buses, revealing how many vehicles fail to meet even the most basic emergency safety norms.

Ignored Safety Standards: What the Law Actually Says

According to the Automotive Industry Standards (AIS-119, AIS-052, and AIS-153), every sleeper coach must have a specific number of exits based on its length. Buses up to 12 metres long are required to have at least four exits—one service door and two roof hatches. Vehicles longer than 12 metres must feature five exits, including one door and three hatches.

Emergency doors must be positioned opposite the main service door, allowing quick escape in case of fire or collision. For front-engine buses, a rear emergency door is mandatory, while rear-engine buses must have side exits. These doors are required to open from both inside and outside, equipped with collapsible steps for easy access, particularly for upper-deck passengers.

Safety norms further specify that emergency windows should be of quick-release or break-glass type, clearly marked with glow-in-the-dark labels and accompanied by emergency lighting. Minimum exit sizes are also defined: for midi or mini buses, the rear emergency door must measure at least 1,250 mm by 550 mm, with limited allowances around wheel-arch areas.

Even ladder and gangway designs are regulated, ensuring passengers on upper berths have a clear, unobstructed path to at least two distinct exits—typically one emergency door and one roof hatch.

However, in practice, these safety features often exist only on paper. Inspections have revealed that many buses operate with blocked hatches, jammed exit windows, or incomplete markings. Passengers in upper berths frequently lack any practical escape route in case of emergencies, making these design flaws potentially fatal.

Paper Compliance and the “Easy Passing” Phenomenon

While the rules are clear, enforcement remains inconsistent—largely due to disparities among state Regional Transport Offices (RTOs). In what insiders refer to as “easy passing,” certain states, notably Arunachal Pradesh, have become preferred registration destinations for fleet operators seeking fast-tracked permits and relaxed scrutiny.

According to transport analyst Raman Nyk, Arunachal’s RTOs are considered lenient because of “fewer applications, lower scrutiny levels, and greater local discretion.” This environment allows for quicker registration, faster permit approvals, and shorter fitness testing queues, often without thorough physical inspections.

“Fleet owners choose these states because it saves both time and money,” said Raman. “The cost-to-time ratio is better—fees and taxes are lower, and the process is fast. But the risk is that compliance exists only on documents. The buses may never actually meet safety norms in reality.”

You can watch Raman Nyk’s detailed exposé on the sleeper bus scam here: Instagram Video Link — where he uncovers how luxury brand logos are swapped onto budget chassis, deceiving both passengers and authorities.

Administrative leeway further adds to the problem. Local officers may approve documentation without cross-verifying physical compliance, enabling vehicles with inadequate exits or structural faults to operate freely. Some insiders also point to the presence of middlemen or “dalals” who expedite paperwork through informal channels, reducing regulatory oversight even further.

Fatal Accidents Expose the Consequences

The consequences of this negligence have already proven deadly. Recent tragedies such as the Jaipur sleeper bus fire and the Andhra Pradesh sleeper coach accident highlight how violations of body codes and missing emergency exits can turn routine journeys into death traps. In both cases, passengers were trapped inside buses that lacked roof-mounted emergency hatches or had illegal seat placements blocking escape routes. These fatal lapses reflect how buses that never met safety standards were still certified fit to operate—underscoring a deep failure in both enforcement and accountability.

Why Operators Prefer Easy States

The motivation for choosing such states is largely economic. Fleet owners cite cost efficiency, quick renewals, and flexible permits as key advantages. Arunachal’s system allows vehicles registered there to obtain interstate permits with minimal hurdles—making it easier to operate across multiple states by simply clearing local taxes or paying destination-specific fees.

The lower backlog at testing centres means that fitness renewals and appointments are easier to secure, boosting operational uptime. However, the lack of rigorous safety verification means that many of these vehicles remain non-compliant despite having valid paperwork.

“The compliance documents—AIS certifications, insurance, tax receipts—are often perfect on paper,” Raman explained. “But the physical bus rarely matches those claims. Even emergency exits sometimes exist only in the documents submitted.”

A Systemic Safety Breakdown

The issue points to a deeper, systemic failure in India’s transport regulation framework. While national laws under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR) and AIS standards apply uniformly, their enforcement is left to individual states, creating inconsistencies.

Some RTOs maintain strict inspection and testing protocols, while others prioritise administrative speed and local revenue generation. This fragmented approach allows vehicles that fail safety norms in one state to secure approvals in another—undermining the intent of uniform national standards.

Experts have long advocated for a centralised digital compliance system that links vehicle safety records, inspection reports, and certification data across all RTOs. Such integration would make it difficult for operators to bypass scrutiny by shifting registrations between states.

Until that happens, passengers remain the most vulnerable stakeholders in this equation. Sleeper buses that appear luxurious on the outside may, in reality, lack the exits, lighting, or design features needed to save lives in a crash or fire.

Conclusion: Rules Exist, But Enforcement Fails

India’s road safety ecosystem is not short of rules—it is short of enforcement. The AIS framework clearly defines what makes a bus safe, yet countless vehicles ply Indian highways in violation of those very norms. The practice of “easy passing” has turned fitness certification into a procedural formality, where compliance is achieved through paperwork rather than actual inspection.

As Raman Nyk aptly put it, “Rules apply to everyone—every state, every RTO, every vehicle. But what good are rules if they stay on paper while lives are at risk on the road?”