T JAGADISH1 Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that rules 2 and 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 and rule 498-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1964 are unconstitutional, illegal and void and consequently directing the respondents not to insist upon the general public wearing helmets compulsorily.

(2.) The averments in support of the writ petitions may be brieflystated. The petitioners are having two-wheeler vehicles and they drive them. Rule 498-A was introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 983 dated 28-10-1976 insisting upon wearing helmets while driving two-wheeler vehicles. Thereafter Section 85-A was inserted by amendment Act 27 of 1977 providing the wear of protective headgears in accordance with rules prescribed by Central Government. It is stated that the rules made by Centre Government are contrary to Section 85-A of the Act and Rule 3 made by the Central Government as well as Rule 498-A made by the State Government are ultravires and unconstitutional.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.R.K. Varaprasad,Sri Afzul Purkar, Sri Gangaiah Naidu and Sri Narsu Bhaskara Rao at the outset contended that Section 85-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made theteunder insisting upon the wear of helmets by drivers of two-wheeler vehicles are unconstitutional and the Central Rules are ultra vires and Rule 498-A of the A. P., Motor Vehicle Rules is invalid as this rule purporting to be made under Section 85-A of the Act was framed even before Section 85-A was introduced and further Sec. 85-A empowered the Central Government only to frame rules. The learned Advocate General contended that Rule 498-A of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules is made pursuant to the power conferred on the State Government to make rules under Section 91 of the Act and sought to sustain the rule under Section 91 of the Act only. In view of this the contentions centering round the constitutional validity of Sec. 85-A of the Act and the rules made thereunder need not be considered. Regarding Rule 498-A it is contended that the rule is ultra vires and beyond the rule making power under Section 91 of the Act and Rule 498-A abridges right of privacy and movement and thus violative of Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and also arbitrary and discriminatory resulting in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.