MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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