Delhi High Court
Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India on 1 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997VIAD(DELHI)237, AIR1998DELHI200, 69(1997)DLT388, 1997(43)DRJ515, 1998RLR158
Author: Dalveer Bhandari
Bench: Arun Kumar, Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) A human rights activist and a practicing lawyer of this Court has preferred this petition in the larger public interest.
(2) This petition is directed against the respondents for not implementing Sections 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as `the Act'. According to the Act, it is compulsory for the driver and pillion rider of two-wheeler motorcycle to wear protective headgear (helmet). The only exception is a Sikh, who otherwise wears turban. According to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car) on a motor cycle of any class or description shall while in a public place, wear [protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards]. Sections 128 and 129 of the Act read as under:- "128.Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders.--(1) No driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind theriver's seat with appropriate safety measures. (2) In addition to the safety measures mentioned in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, prescribe other safety measures for the drivers of two-wheeled motor cycles and pillion riders thereon." "129. Wearing of protective headgear.- Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear [protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards]: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place, wearing a turban: Provided further that the State Government may, by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think fit. Exception- "Protective headgear" means a helmet which, -- (a) by virtue of its shape, material and construction, could reasonably be expected to afford to the person driving or riding on a motor cycle a degree of protection from injury in the event of an accident; and (b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear."
(3) According to the petitioner, in case of road accidents, the death of drivers of two wheeled motorcycle and of pillion rider happen in majority of the cases because they do not wear helmet in spite of mandatory provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Act. The expression two wheeled motorcycle includes two wheeled scooters also. The petitioner submits that the respondents/Union of India and the Commissioner of Police have failed to carry out their statutory duties of enforcing the aforementioned provisions.
(4) In this petition, this Court issued a show cause notice and in pursuance thereof, Mr. Ujjwal Mishra, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) filed a counter-affidavit. Mr. Mishra has highlighted that there are some impediments in the implementation of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the pillion riders are not always grown-up adults, but there are women and children also. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the respondents are primarily facing two problems in implementation of the provisions of the Act. (A)the availability of helmets of different sizes; (b) resistance on the part of wearing especially in the case of very small children, conservative women and elderly/sick persons.
(5) In the counter-affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has clearly admitted that there is no doubt that the death rate is pilling up because of the non-implementation of the aforesaid provisions of the Act.
(6) The framers of the Act have incorporated Sections 128 and 129 of the Act in the larger public interest. The predominate purpose behind incorporating these provisions was to avoid fatal and serious accidents. This fact is abundantly proved even from the counter-affidavit of the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Police. In case a large number of fatal and other serious accidents can be avoided by the strict compliance of the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Act, in that event slight inconvenience, if any, in its compliance, may have to be suffered in the larger interest of the drivers and pillion riders of the two wheeled motorcycles.
(7) This is the settled principle of the interpretation of the statute that the framers of the Act are presumed to have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects at the time of framing the statute. Once the Act has come into force, no one can be permitted to bypass or ignore the provisions of the Act on the ground of inconvenience and some difficulties in its implementation. In the instant case, we do not see any insurmountable difficulty in its implementation.
(8) The anxiety and concern of the petitioner is also the anxiety and concern of all of us. These provisions have been specially enacted primarily for the larger public interest and the respondents are duty-bound to implement these provisions meticulously.
(9) Admittedly, there has been no implementation of the Sections 128 and 129 of the Act, since the Act came in force, therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 2, Police Commissioner of Delhi that this decision of ours shall be given adequate publicity by media and also through local Doordarshan programme, indicating that henceforth these provisions of the Act shall be strictly implemented and violators shall be punished. The Commissioner of Police shall ensure compliance of these provisions after giving adequate publicity of this order.
(10) The drivers and pillion riders are also directed to fully cooperate with the respondent in implementation of these provisions particularly when implementation is insisted upon primarily for their safety.
(11) The Commissioner of Police is further directed to take appropriate action against the Police officials and other officials in case they do not implement these provisions meticulously and efficiently. A copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police for compliance through a Special Messenger by the Registry. No further directions are necessary. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.