AJAY CANU versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 29-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJAY CANU 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA'& ORS. 
AUGUST 29, 1988 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, J.) 
c 
D 
Motor Vehicle Act 1939, Sections 85A and 91. 
A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1964, Rule 498-A & Commissioner of 
Police, Hyderabad Notification dated July 8, 1956. 
Hyderabad City Police Act. Section 21(1) and Commissioner's 
Notification dated July 8, 1956. 
Crash helmets-Wearing of-By drivers of motor cycles and 
scooters-Validity and necessity of. 
Constitution of India 1950. Part II and Articles 19( l)(d), (5) and 
21. ' 
Any act aimed at doing public good-Not violative of any funda-
mental right-A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1964, Rule 498-A-Crash 
E 
he/mets-Wearing of-Statutory rule being for public good-Restric-
tion if any put by rule is reasonable. 
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, in 
exercise of his powers under Section 21(1) oftbe Hyderabad City Police 
Act, issued a Notification dated July 8, 1986 directing that in order to 
F 
ensure adequate safety of two-wheeler riders, wearing of protective 
Helmets Is made compulsory for riders of motor-cycles and scooters, as 
envisaged by rule 498-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 
1964 with effect from August 1, 1986. 
· 
The petitioner, a student having a permanent driving licence for a 
G 
two-wheeler vehicle, tiled a writ petition in the High Court challenging 
the validity of the aforesaid Notification as also rule 498-A of the 
Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 on the ground th_at the 
same was violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the 
petitioner under Article l?(l)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution. It 
was contended by the petitioner that as Section SSA of the Motor Vehi-
H 
cles Act, 1939 was yet to be enforced, rule 498-A was illegal and ultra 
632 
·; 
AJAY CANU v. U.O.l. 
633 
vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was further contended that the 
wearing of helmets preventing the free flow of breeze to the head result 
in giddiness and affect sight and hearing. The petitioner also tiled an 
·affidavit of one Dr. Prabhakar Korada to support the contention that 
continuous wearing of helmets can raise the pressure leading to irrita· 
lion, confusion, headaches, giddiness and falling of hair etc. 
The High .Court overruled the contentions of the petitioner and 
upheld the validity of the notification and the provisions of rule 498-A of 
the A.P, Motor Vehicles Rules. The High Court also relied upon the 
medical opinions of some Neuro-Surgeons of repute, and ca111e t? the 
finding that wearing of helmets would not cause any ailment whatsoever 
1lS contended by the petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly 
- dismissed. 
The petitioner appealed to this Court by Special Leave. It was 
contended on his behalf that in view of the cancellation of the notifica-
A 
B 
c 
tion dated May 14, 1988, Section 85-A had not come into force and as 
such, there was no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act providing for 
D 
wearing of protective headgear or helmet by the driver of a motor-cycle 
of any class while driving the same. It was also submitted that in the 
absence of any specific provision in the Act, rule 498-A was ultra vires 
the Act itself and consequently, the notification issued under Section 
21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act was illegal and should be struck 
down. 
E 
As there was some doubt whether Section 85-A had come into 
force by virtue of the notification dated May 14, 1988 and whether the 
Central Government had the power to cancel the said notification by 
their subsequent notification dated October 31, 1980, the Court issued 
notice to the Attorney General of India, who appeared and relying on 
F 
the decision in Om Prakash and Others v. Union of India and Others, 
AIR 1971 ·sc 771 submitted that even assuming that rule 498-A does 
not;come within the purview of clause (i) ofsub-section (2) of section 91, 
still the State Government could frame such a rule under sub-section (I) 
of section 91 and that the clauses under sub-section (2) of section 91 are 
only illustrative and not exhaustive. 
G 
Dismissing the special leave petition, 
HELD: 1. Rule 498-A has been framed by the State Government 
by virtue of its rule making power under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of 
section 91 of the M. V. Act i939 for the purpose of protecting the head 
H 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A from being injured in case of an accident. [638E] 
2. It is common knowledge that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.