138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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