Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. In K. Veeresh Babu v. Union of India it has been held as under:

Wearing of Helmet is made compulsory for the purpose of protection from injury, and heat and pollution, Rules and Regulations along cannot be panacea since human error is considered as the major cause for road accidents. Accusations regarding the causes of the accident as being due to carelessness, drunkenness, rashness, negligence, over-speeding arrogance, incompetence etc., are of secondary line of thinking since often riders might not be there as a living witness to explain the causes. In this modern society one should not speak through, rules and regulations but must visualize their moral commitment to the society at large. Rider must realize that woman who is widowed because of the road accident may be his own wife or vice verse. Thus Rule 230 of the Rules in making wearing of helmet compulsory to two wheeler riders is based on rational basis taking into consideration the alarming proportion of the road accidents involving two wheeler riders, such policy is not only rational but is also in the interest of larger public interest, since statistics revealed that more number of two wheelers are on the road having in view of transport problems and economics of the cost. The rule making authority has merely given effect to the intention of the legislature whereby separate treatment to two wheeler has been provided to have riders, from accidents resulting in fatal injuries. If the rules could be validly framed then there is no reasons as to why rule making authority could not be held to have the power to frame a rule which is in consonance with the legislative intent as envisaged under the Act.