Gratuity Is A Statutory Right, Cannot Be Denied On Vague Allegations Of Abandonment: Calcutta High Court Directs Employer To Pay Pending Gratuity With Interest Prosecutrix Is a Victim of Crime, Not an Accomplice — Sole Testimony Sufficient for Conviction If It Inspires Confidence: Bombay High Court Rape Is An Offence Against Society And Not A Matter To Be Left For Compromise: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Under Section 376 IPC And U.P. Conversion Prevention Act Despite Settlement Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation in Sports Quota for MBBS Admissions Total Non-Compliance of Section 42 Vitiates the Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in 25-Year-Old NDPS Case Involving 30 Bags of Poppy Husk An Advocate’s Office Situated in a Commercial Building Qualifies as Non-Residential Use Entitling Eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Criminal History—Conspiracy Allegations Alone Insufficient Without Direct Role in SC/ST Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Vested Right to Retain Government Accommodation After Losing Public Office — Penal Rent Justified for Unauthorized Occupation: Patna High Court These Litigations Appear to Be Luxury Litigations: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost on Over 6400 Petitioners Seeking Revival of TET-Based Selection Process Rule 6(2) Is Not a Cut-Off Provision—Supreme Court Declares Candidates Eligible If D.El.Ed. Was Completed Before Selection Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Cannot Be Halted on the Basis of Belated and Baseless Custody Without Communication of Grounds Is No Custody in Law —Violation of Articles 21 and 22 Nullifies Arrest and Remand: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Arrest of Music Producer as Illegal Scribe Is Not a Substitute for Attesting Witness—Will Must Satisfy Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects 45-Year-Old Testamentary Claim Removal From Service With Superannuation Benefits Entitles Employee to Pension: Supreme Court Acknowledgment of Liability Extends Limitation — Pendency of Appeal No Ground to Resist Recovery: Supreme Court Sympathy Cannot Override Binding Conditions of Tender: Supreme Court Sets  Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Applicant’s Group Classification for BPCL Dealership Land Acquisition | Factory Without CLU Can't Claim Land Release Despite Long Possession; However, Compensation Under 2013 Act Granted : Supreme Court Person’s Identity Is Not Lost If a Machine Fails to Recognize Them: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes LIC’s Rejection Over Biometric Mismatch Mother Cannot Mask Paternity to Satisfy Ego: Bombay High Court Rejects Petition to List Woman as ‘Single Parent’ in Child’s Birth Certificate Transferee Pendente Lite Is Bound by the Decree—Cannot Obstruct Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Revisional Court for Overreach Higher Placement in Seniority List Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Direction to Consider Contractual Worker for Appointment on Par with Others Regularised CBI Investigation is Not to Be Ordered Routinely on Vague Allegations: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Order Directing CBI Probe in Extortion Case When Aggressors Trespass Armed into a Dwelling and Cause Fatal Injuries, Exception to Murder Does Not Arise: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction under Section 302 IPC Delayed Payment for 50 Years Warrants Reasonable Interest, But Excessive Rates Cannot Be Granted": Supreme Court

No exemption to a citizen from wearing a helmet - Dismisses Exemption Plea on Medical Grounds: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the mandatory helmet rule for two-wheeler riders and pillion riders, dismissing a plea seeking exemption on medical grounds. The court emphasized the importance of wearing protective headgear for the safety of individuals on the road. The judgment, delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, stated, "There cannot be any exemption to a citizen from wearing a helmet while driving or riding a two-wheeler." The court also highlighted the installation of AI surveillance cameras on Kerala's roads as an innovative step towards enforcing road safety rules.

The petitioners, Mohanan V.V. and Santha Mohanan, had filed a writ petition seeking exemption from wearing helmets while riding their two-wheelers due to their medical conditions. They argued that the helmets caused discomfort and were unsuitable for their specific health issues, such as severe headaches. The petitioners claimed that the lack of frequent public transportation services in their area compelled them to rely on two-wheelers for commuting to Muvattupuzha Town.

However, the court cited Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 347 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which make it mandatory for motorcycle riders and pillion riders to wear helmets conforming to prescribed standards. The court emphasized that the law aims to protect the lives of individuals on the road and that there cannot be any exemption from this safety requirement.

Addressing the introduction of AI surveillance cameras, the court appreciated the government's initiative to enhance road safety and enforce traffic regulations. It acknowledged the need for rectifying any technical defects or concerns related to the implementation of the system. The court stated that the installation of AI surveillance cameras is an innovative step towards detecting violations and ensuring road safety. It further added that the petitioners could not evade the surveillance cameras by seeking exemption from wearing helmets.

The judgment highlighted that citizens do not have a fundamental right to use two-wheelers without adhering to the rules and regulations governing road safety. The court emphasized that if the petitioners have health conditions that prevent them from wearing helmets, they should opt for alternative modes of transportation such as public transport or private vehicles where helmets are not required.

This ruling reinforces the importance of helmet usage as a crucial safety measure and underscores the responsibility of individuals to prioritize their safety and the safety of others on the road. The court's decision sets a precedent for upholding the mandatory helmet rule and discouraging attempts to seek exemptions based on medical grounds.

Date of Decision: 19th June 2023

MOHANAN V.V vs STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/MOHANAN-Vs-State-Ker.-HC-19-June-2023.pdf"]

Similar News

  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Income tax returns not a foolproof defence against a charge of acquisition of assets disproportionate under the PC – SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
There could be no question of being permitted to reinstate after acceptance of the resignation.-SC
  • by Admin
    07 May 2024 2:49 AM
Appeal filed by Adani Gas Ltd seeking authorisation for city gas distribution network in three areas of Ahmedabad District in Gujarat with a cost of Rupees 10 lakhs. SC