GEORGE JOHN Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case is filed alleging violation of Full Bench judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 21296 of 2000 Judgment reported in 2003 (3) KLT 675 (F.B) whereunder this Court directed the Motor Vehicle Authority and police to ensure that two wheeler travellers comply with Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for compulsory wearing of helmet by the driver and rider of two wheelers. Even though the Petitioner has alleged deliberate violation of the judgment by the police and motor vehicle authorities, Government Pleader has emphatically denied it and State has filed the statistics showing reduction of accidents and death cases.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure A3 which is a newspaper report published in Malayala Manorama dated 20.1.2008 quoting the Home Minister instructing the police not to harass people for not wearing helmet. However, Director General of Police has filed a counter affidavit denying the alleged instruction issued by the Home Minister. The counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that even though official instruction is not issued, a statement by the Minister published in the newspaper carries weight and police officers will be reluctant to implement the judgment of the High Court against the wishes of the Minister. We do not think there is any need to verify whether Minister had in fact issued instruction to the police and other authorities against enforcement of the judgment. However, generally newspapers do not report statements which have not been really made by the Ministers and other political leaders. Further it is very common that in public political leaders and Ministers make statements against judgments which is an encouragement to those who are bound to enforce judgments to violate the same. We have to only direct the Police and Government authorities to ignore the directions or statements if any issued by the Minister or anyone against enforcement of the judgment, which every Respondent in the judgment is bound to comply with. In other words, we remind the police and other authorities that the support from even Minister will not be a defence in a contempt case.

(3.) So far as the allegation of non implementation of the judgment by the police and motor vehicle authorities is concerned, we do not think any proof is required because large number of people are seen travelling in two wheelers in front of traffic police on duty without wearing helmet which is a clear violation of Section 129 of the Act. Unfortunately, the punishment for violation of Section 129 of the Act is only fine of small amounts provided under Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is for the legislature to amend Section 177 providing for severe punishment, and for repeated offences imprisonment to ensure that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act is complied with by two wheeler riders. Further, it is for the insurance companies to consider whether the claim by those who violate the provisions of Section 129 of the Act should be dishonoured if at the time of accident, the victim was not wearing helmet and for this purpose specific provision could be made in insurance policies. The Petitioner can bring this to the notice of the insurance companies to make specific provision for excluding the insurer's liability for those who are involved in the accident and suffer injury or loss for want of helmet as required under Section 129 of the Act. With the above observations, we once again direct the Director General of Police and Secretary to Government to instruct all subordinate staff to comply with the judgment by booking offenders and proceeding against them for violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Contempt case is disposed of as above.