TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds helmet rule for two-wheeler riders</h1> <h3>Ajay Canu Versus Union of India and others</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the validity of rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964, and a notification mandating the wearing of protective ... - Issues:Validity of rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 and a notification dated July 8, 1986 requiring the wearing of protective helmets for two-wheeler riders.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the validity of rule 498-A and the notification on the grounds of violating constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notification and rule 498-A. The High Court relied on medical opinions to refute claims that wearing helmets could cause health issues. The petitioner contended that since section 85-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not enforced, rule 498-A was illegal. The Supreme Court assumed section 85-A was not enforced and analyzed the legality of rule 498-A.The Supreme Court examined the rule-making power of the State Government under section 91 of the Act to determine the legality of rule 498-A. It was argued that rule 498-A falls within the power to prevent danger or injury to the public or any person, including two-wheeler drivers. The Court concluded that rule 498-A is valid under the broad scope of the rule-making power, even if not explicitly covered by a specific clause.The Court considered the petitioner's argument that the helmet requirement infringed on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. It held that rule 498-A aimed to ensure safety and did not unreasonably restrict freedom of movement. The Court found the restriction to be in the public interest and a reasonable limitation under Article 19(5). The petitioner's claim of health issues due to helmet wearing was dismissed based on expert medical opinions accepted by the High Court.The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's contentions, upholding the validity of rule 498-A and the notification. It concluded that the requirement for helmets served public safety and did not violate constitutional rights. The special leave petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
