1988 (8) TMI 422 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds helmet rule for two-wheeler riders

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 ... Validity of subordinate legislation - State rule-making power under section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act (carrying into effect Chapter VI) - Compulsory protective headgear / helmet regulation for two-wheeler riders - Reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(d) in the interest of public safety - Procedure established by law under Article 21Validity of subordinate legislation - State rule-making power under section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act (carrying into effect Chapter VI) - Legality and validity of rule 498-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules as intra vires the State's rule-making power under the Motor Vehicles Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that rule 498-A, which makes wearing of crash helmets compulsory for drivers of motor-cycles and scooters, falls within the State Government's rule-making competence under section 91. Clause (i) of sub-section (2), read with sub-section (1), empowers the State to make rules for prevention of danger, injury or annoyance to the public or any person; the expression 'any person' includes the driver of a two-wheeler. Even if clause (i) were regarded as illustrative, the general power under sub-section (1) to make rules for carrying into effect the Chapter is broad enough to support rule 498-A. Accordingly, the provision is not ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act despite the absence of an enforced central section prescribing helmets.Rule 498-A is valid and intra vires the State's rule-making power under the Motor Vehicles Act.Compulsory protective headgear / helmet regulation for two-wheeler riders - Validity of police notification under local police statute - Validity of the July 8, 1986 notification issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, directing compulsory wearing of helmets in exercise of powers under the Hyderabad City Police Act. - HELD THAT: - The Court upheld the notification issued under section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act as a valid exercise of the delegated power to ensure safety. The notification implemented the protection envisaged by rule 498-A to secure adequate safety of two-wheeler riders and was upheld together with the rule.The impugned notification is valid and is not illegal.Reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(d) in the interest of public safety - Procedure established by law under Article 21 - Whether rule 498-A infringes fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution. - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the contention that compulsory helmets unlawfully infringe the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). It held that the rule is directed to public safety and the personal safety of riders, is for the benefit and welfare of two-wheeler users, and if any restriction on movement exists it is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public (protected by Article 19(5)). As the rule was made in accordance with the procedure established by law under the delegated legislative power conferred by the Act, no separate violation of Article 21 arises.Constitutional challenges under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 are repelled; the rule is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety and complies with procedure established by law.Medical objections to safety regulation - Allegation that wearing helmets causes medical ailments such as giddiness and headaches. - HELD THAT: - The High Court had considered medical opinions of reputable neuro-surgeons and found no merit in the contention that helmets cause the alleged ailments. The Supreme Court found no substance in this contention, noted it was not pressed strongly before it, and upheld the High Court's rejection of the medical claim.Medical objections to compulsory helmet use are rejected.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed. Rule 498-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules and the Commissioner of Police's notification are upheld as valid exercises of delegated power, constitutional challenges under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 are rejected, and the petition fails; no order as to costs. 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.