Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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