D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard petitioner in person and learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Rule made forthwith by consent of the parties.
2.The petitioner in person in the instant petition, has challenged the decision taken by the Government of Goa to implement section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 273 of the Goa Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991, in the larger interest of the society on the following grounds :---
(i) that the decision taken by the Government of Goa is motivated by some persons with vested interest;
(ii) that the decision, if implemented, shall foster the interest of vested people to amass huge amount by unscrupulous means;
(iii) that some Minister's relatives are connected with the business of helmets and in order to achieve their ulterior motive they have succeeded in persuading the Government to take the above referred decision and impose the use of helmet; and
(iv) the decision taken by the Government of Goa is likely to affect the common people since two-wheelers are particularly owned by middle and lower middle class of people.
3. The petition in person also put forth certain draw backs of use of helmets in the petition.
4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner, it has been averred that the legislation in this regard is discriminatory, since the Motor Vehicles Act provides for exemption in respect of the Sikh community. The party in person therefore contended that the decision taken by the Government of Goa to implement section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 273 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, is bad in law since the same is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
5. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Government of Goa, shows that earlier a Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No. 286/2000, was filed by one student Miss Bianca Gracias and two others seeking direction to the Government of Goa to adopt measures relating to minimishig road accidents in the interest of the public and to make use of helmets to the two wheeler riders compulsory. The affidavit further discloses that pursuant to the direction given by this Court to the petitioners they approached the enforcing agency (Police) with regard to their grievances, and moved Memo dated 20th September, 2000.
6. On 26th September, 2000, the Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Panaji, called for a meeting and discussed the issue and considered the grievances of the petitioners, including the grievances of wearing of helmet to be made compulsory to the two wheeler riders. Wide publicity was given in the local newspapers with regard to wearing of helmets being made compulsory to the two wheelers riders and further extension of time was also given to the public to buy helmets, if not yet purchased. It is stated in the affidavit, that the Government of Goa decided to implement section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 273 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules more vigorously in order to protect the lives of the citizens, the same being the obligation of the State. The statement annexed to the affidavit for the period from 1st January 1998 to 31st December, 2000, shows that the total victims killed in accident due to head injuries is 513, out of which 369 were the riders of the two wheelers and 144 were the pillion riders. Learned Counsel appearing for the State Government therefore, contended that the decision taken is in the interest of the public at large and is sustainable in law. It is categorically denied that the allegations made by the petitioners in respect of decision being motivated out of vested interest and to benefit particular individuals.
7. Considered the contentions raised by the respective Counsels. So far as the allegation of decision being motivated with ulterior motives to benefit some of the relatives of the Minister or some individuals, it is totally vague and without any basis. There is no material whatsoever placed on record by the petitioner in this regard and hence, the allegation made by the petitioner is not only frivolous, but also is without any substance and needs to be rejected.
8. Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, makes it compulsory for the driver as well as the pillion rider of two wheeler motor cycles, to wear protective headgear (helmet) with the only exception in respect of Sikhs, who, otherwise wear a turban. Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus :---
'129. Wearing of protective hear gear.---Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class of description) shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards :
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place, wearing a turban :
Provided further that the State Government may, by such rules provide for such exceptions as it may think fit.
Explanation.---'Protective headgear' means a helmet which --
(a) by virtue of its shape, material and construction, could reasonably be expected to afford to the person driving or riding on a motor cycle a degree of protection from injury in the event of an accident ; and
(b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear.'
9. imilarly, Rule 273 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, is enacted on similar lines which also make it compulsory to wear protective headgear (helmet) of such quality as to reduce head injuries to the riders of two wheelers, resulting from head impacts. Sub-rule (2) further provides that the protective headgear should be one which has been approved by the Indian Standard Institute; Standard No. IS4151-1976. Sub-rule (3) contemplates that each protective headgear shall have permanently and legible label in such a manner that the label or labels can be easily read without removing padding or any other permanent part so as to ascertain the following aspects :---
(a) Manufacturer's name or identification,
(b) Size.
(c) Month and year of manufacture.
(d) The mark of Indian Standard Institute.
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 273 provides further specifications in this regard.
10. The statistical data in respect of accidents involving two wheelers and deaths caused due to head injuries referred to hereinabove would show that there is an urgent need to implement these provisions in the interest of the society and to protect the lives of the people. Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in fact has made compulsory the use of protective headgear/helmet by the driver and pillion rider of the two wheeler motor cycles. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted similar Rules in 1964. Particularly relevant Rule is Rule 498-A. The Apex Court in the case of Ajay Canu v. Union of India & others, reported in : AIR1988SC2027 , held that the Rule is not violative of any fundamental rights. Restriction, if any, is reasonable and in the interest of general public. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India & another, reported in A.I.R. Del 200, directed the Commissioner of Police to ensure compliance of the provisions of sections 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after giving adequate publicity and further directed to take appropriate action against the Police Officers for not implementing these provisions meticulously and efficiently.
11. Another contention raised by the petitioner in respect of violation of Article 14 is also misconceived. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Permissible classification essentially depends upon two conditions, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on a intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from the others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object to be achieved by the statute in question. In the instant case, the exemption given to Sikhs is not on the basis of caste, creed or religion. However, the members of the Sikh community wear turban, which in fact serves the object of the provisions, i.e. protecting the head from head injury in case of road accident. The classification, therefore, in our opinion, has a rational relation to the object of the provisions to be achieved by the statute and therefore, the same is permissible in law and does not violate the guarantee of equal protection before law given by Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the contention is rejected.
12. The controversy in our opinion, therefore, is no more res integra and is concluded by the above referred decisions of the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court. Rule 273 of the Goa Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991, in our opinion, cannot be said to be, in the circumstances, violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petition, therefore, suffers from lack of merit and needs to be dismissed.
13. We direct the Director General of Police, Goa to give adequate publicity to our decision by media, also through local Doordashan programme, indicating that henceforth these provisions of the Act and the Rules shall be strictly implemented and violators shall be punished.
14. We are aware that it will be necessary to grant reasonable time to people at large to purchase the necessary helmet/protective headgear, and, therefore, in our opinion, it will be appropriate to defer the implementation of this decision taken by the Government of Goa in view of section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 273 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, by two months from the date of publication of our decision in various modes suggested by us in media, by the Director General of Police.
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.