TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Secunderabad, In exercise of his Powers under section 21(1.) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, inter alia, directing that in order to ensure adequate safety of two-wheeler riders, wearing of protective helmets is made compulsory for riders of motor- cycles and scooters, as envisaged by rule 498-A, with effect from August 1, 1986. Rule 498-A provides as follows: Rule 4983-A. Crash helmets to be worn No person shall drive a motor-cycle or a scooter in a public place unless such driver wears a crash helmet: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a person professing Sikh religion and wears a turban. ''The petitioner, who is a student and has a permanent drivined licence for a two-wheeler vehicle, filed a writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules. Hence, this petition for special leave. At this stage, it may be noticed that by motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act XXVII of 1977 a new section 85-A was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' Section 85-A provides as follow: S. 85-A Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car) on a motor cycle of any class shall, while in a public place. wear a protective headgear of such description as may be specified by the Central Government by rules made by it in this behalf, and different descriptions of headgears may be specified in such rules in relation to different circumstances or different class of motor cycles: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the impugned notification issued under section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act is illegal and should be struck down. As there was some doubt as to whether section 85-A had come into force by virtue of the notification date May14- 1980 and whether the Central Government had the power to cancel-l the said notification by the subsequent notification dated October31,1980, we thought it expedient to request the learned Attorney General to appear and assist the Court. In compliance with our request, the learned Attorney General has appeared before us, but we are of the view that no assistance will by necessary on the point, as we do not think that we are for the reasons state called upon to adjudicate upon the question hereafter. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cast of an accident. It is common knowledge that head of the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle is the main target of an accident and often it is fatal to the driver. By insisting on the wearing of a helmet by the driver driving a two-wheeler vehicle rule 498-A intends to protect the head from being fatally injured in case of an accident. Clause (i) is wide enough to include the driver of a motor- cycle or a scooter. The expression any person in clause (i) also includes within it a driver of a two-wheeler vehicle. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the words any person do not include the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle and the rule is intended to prevent the danger, injury or annoyance to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and does not, in any way, restrict the general power under sub-section (1). Thus, even assuming that rule 498-A is not covered by clause (i) of sub-section (2), it is quite immaterial inasmuch as such a rule can be framed in exercise of the general power under sub-section (1) for the purpose of carrying into effect Chapter VI relating to control of traffic. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the petitioner that rule 498-A is ultra vires the provision of the Act. The next attack to rule 498-A and to the impugned notification is based on the fundamental right of a Citizen. It is submitted that the compulsion for the wearing of a helmet by the driver of two-wheeler vehicle is an infringement of the freedom of movement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riction protected by Article 19(5) of the Constitution. As rule 498-A has been framed in accordance with the procedure established by law, that is, in exercise of the rule making power conferred on the State Government under section 91 of the Act, as discussed above, the question of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution does not arise. The contention of the petitioner that rule 498-A and the impugned notification dated July 8, 1986 issued by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of his powers under section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(l)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution, is devoid of merit and is rejected. As to the contention of the petitioner th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
