Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Kerala Conductors for Alleged Wrongful Restraint of Students: Emphasizes Equal Treatment for All Passengers

04 September 2024 10:57 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has quashed the charges against three bus conductors who were accused of wrongfully restraining students from boarding their buses. The judgment, delivered by The Honorable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan on 4th August 2023, sheds light on the need for equal treatment of students and other passengers while boarding buses.

The accused conductors faced charges under Section 190(2) read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), alleging violation of standards related to road safety, noise control, and air pollution. However, Justice Kunhikrishnan, while examining the provisions, stated, "Prima facie a conductor of a bus will not come within the purview of the above section." He further added, "Simply because students were not allowed to board a bus, it cannot be treated as a violation of the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise, and air-pollution."

The judgment also emphasized the need for bus owners to address their grievances regarding student concessions with the government rather than resorting to discriminatory practices. "Students and other passengers are on an equal footing. It is the duty of the police to see that there is no law and order problem in connection with the same," remarked Justice Kunhikrishnan.

Highlighting the concerns over the prevalent practice of not allowing students to board buses, the court directed the State police chief to take appropriate actions to avert any potential law and order issues arising from disputes between students and bus employees at bus stands and stops.

The ruling comes as a significant step towards promoting fairness and equality in public transportation and sends a strong message about the importance of providing equal access to transportation services for all passengers.

As a result of the judgment, all proceedings against the accused in the cases have been quashed, with the court urging the state authorities to look into student concessions' current realities and consider the demands raised by bus owners in this regard.

D.D-4Aug.2023

SIRAJ vs STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News