Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: 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