“It Is Better To Wear Helmet Than To Hurt The Head”- Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Exemption From Wearing Helmet

“It Is Better To Wear Helmet Than To Hurt The Head”- Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Exemption From Wearing Helmet

The Hon’ble Kerala High court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking exemption to wear helmets due to certain medical conditions and observed that “there cannot be any exemption to a citizen from wearing helmet while driving or riding a two wheeler. If the petitioners are suffering from any illness which disable them from wearing helmets, they have to abandon their two wheeler ride. They cannot avoid helmet in such situation while driving or riding. Wearing of helmet while riding a two wheeler is to protect the life of the citizen. Protection of the life of the citizen is the duty of the State. Therefore, there cannot be any exemption to the petitioners in wearing helmets, stating that they are suffering from some illness. There is no fundamental right to a citizen to use two wheelers without following the rules of the land. There is public transport facility and private transport facility available in the State. If the petitioners are suffering from illness, they can use the same. They cannot violate the law and ride two wheelers without helmets and escape from the AI cameras”

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners filed this writ petition with a prayer to get an exemption from wearing Helmets while riding two wheelers on medical grounds and their immediate provocation to file this writ petition is the installation of AI surveillance Cameras on the roads of Kerala.

HON’BLE COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan essentially observed that “There was a meaningful message from Hyderabad City Police on Twitter long back, which is even now available on ‘google search’ of internet, which reads like this:- “DON’T WEAR HELMET BECAUSE OF POLICE. WEAR IT TO MEET YOUR FAMILY AGAIN”. What a heart-breaking message.”

Hon’ble Court thereafter quoted the relevant provisions from Sec.129 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rule 347 of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which provides for wearing of protective gear.

Hon’ble court then placed reliance on Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala [2003 KHC 1171] in which similar issues were dealt with and quoted the relevant portion of the same, which are quoted herein below:-

“A perusal of the above provision shows that the Act and the Rule requires the driver as well as the rider of a motor cycle to wear a protective headgear. It should conform to the ISI standards. The mandate is binding on everyone. The obligation is of the citizen. In case of default, the State has the power to impose the penalty.

There is a clear rationale for the requirement. Human bones are brittle. These can break easily. The skull is a sensitive part of the anatomy. It needs to be secured. A protective headgear is essential to protect the head. It is not merely a part of the space suit that the astronaut wears on the voyage in the outer space. The law makes it incumbent even for those who move on motorcycle or scooters etc. in public places.

The petitioner has placed material on record to show that the number of fatal accidents is raising. Each accident is a tragedy for the family. It has implications for the society as well. The amount of compensation and the cost of treatment are clear economic factors. It is a matter of concern for all. It is true that carrying extra weight on the head or in hand cannot be convenient. Yet, mere inconvenience cannot be a good ground to ignore the advantage or the mandate of law. We need to realize that it is better to wear the helmet than to hurt the head.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble court relied on Rajneesh Kapoor v. Union of India and another [2007 KHC 7451] in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court categorically held that it infringes a fundamental rights of other person and limitations of Article 21. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as following

“Under certain circumstances the aforesaid Article is not to be treated in absolute terms and can be lawfully restricted for the protection of the health. No citizen can claim the protection of Art.21 on the ground that he is discomforted or flummoxed by wearing a helmet while driving or riding a motorcycle. The individual discomfiture has to succumb to the paramount objective of saving life. As has been indicated earlier the impact of the provision on the fundamental rights has to be seen. Hence, the petitioner on his personal discomfiture cannot say that the provision is unconstitutional when it has been engrafted with the object of protection of health and life of the individual as well as that of all motorcycle users which in a way forms the in – severable part of the health and safety of the collective. The data produced may be scientific or may not be. The articles that have been authored and which have been produced by the petitioner may have some relevance or may not. A stand has been taken in the counter – affidavit that the said articles are not scientific.

We are not inclined to dwell in the said debate as we are disposed to think that the same is not within the domain of scrutiny of the Courts and the Legislature in its own expertise and data has engrafted the provision. The Legislature in its own wisdom may look at the same. As advised at present the said provision, as it appears to us, is wholesome and beneficial. We do not really find that it offends any of the fundamental rights as has been pyramided by Mr. A. M. Triversi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that it does not infringe or create any concavity in the golden triangle, namely, Art.14, Art.19 and Art.21 of the Constitution of India, for such a provision saves life, the precious gift of nature and the prized benefaction of creative intelligence.”

In view of the aforesaid, Hon’ble court dismissed the writ petition and rejected the contention of the petitioners against the installation of AI Cameras.

Case Title:-  Mohanan V.V. & another Vs. State of Kerala

Case no. :-   WP(C) NO. 18952 OF 2023

Order date :- 19.06.2023