AJAY CANU versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

AJAY CANU versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Rule 498-A, requiring wearing of helmets by two-wheeler drivers, is legal and valid under Section 91(1) and clause (i) of Section 91(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The restriction, being aimed at public safety and welfare, does not violate constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. Even in absence of Section 85-A, rule-making power permits such regulations. The restriction is reasonable and not arbitrary.

Parties
Petitioner: Ajay Canu; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Appellate Review, Petition From Andhra Pradesh High Court Decision
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Freedom of Movement, Validity of Statutory Rules, Rule Making Power, Safety Regulations, Ultra Vires Challenge
Constitutional Law Motor Vehicle Law Administrative Law Fundamental Rights Freedom of Movement Validity of Statutory Rules Rule Making Power Safety Regulations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Canu

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Supreme Court Appellate Review, Petition From Andhra Pradesh High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964, and Notification dated July 8, 1986, violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether Rule 498-A is ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in absence of Section 85-A coming into force
  3. 3 Whether restriction imposed by Rule 498-A is reasonable and for public welfare

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 498-A, requiring wearing of helmets by two-wheeler drivers, is legal and valid under Section 91(1) and clause (i) of Section 91(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The restriction, being aimed at public safety and welfare, does not violate constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. Even in absence of Section 85-A, rule-making power permits such regulations. The restriction is reasonable and not arbitrary.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.