https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182291 A helmet requirement for riders of motor-cycles and scooters was upheld as a valid safety measure under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court treated the State's rule-making power as broad enough to cover measures intended to prevent danger and injury, and held that the specific illustrations in the rule-making provision did not limit that general power. The challenge under Article 19(1)(d) failed because the requirement was a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public under Article 19(5). The Article 21 challenge also failed because the rule was made under lawful authority, and objections based on medical discomfort were rejected. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 May 2016 17:32:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182291 A helmet requirement for riders of motor-cycles and scooters was upheld as a valid safety measure under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court treated the State's rule-making power as broad enough to cover measures intended to prevent danger and injury, and held that the specific illustrations in the rule-making provision did not limit that general power. The challenge under Article 19(1)(d) failed because the requirement was a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public under Article 19(5). The Article 21 challenge also failed because the rule was made under lawful authority, and objections based on medical discomfort were rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182291