Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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"]

Latest Legal News