SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has, inter alia, sought a writ for declaring Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as ultra -vires. This Section provides that every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor -cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear a protective headgear of such description as may be specified by the State Government by rules made by it in this behalf, and different descriptions of headgears may be specified in such rules in relation to different circumstances or different class or description of motor -cycles. This condition shall, however, 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. It also provides that it will be open to the State Government to provide for such exceptions, as it may think fit, by making rules. Section 129 of the Act reads as under: - 129. Wearing of protective headgear. - Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear a protective headgear of such description as may be specified by the State Government by rules made by it in this behalf, and different descriptions of headgears may be specified in such rules in relation to different circumstances or different class or description of motor cycles: 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. This provision correspondence to Section 85 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 with some modifications.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Anand Mohan, the petitioner in person. He has challenged the vires of this provision. The vires of any provision of any enactment can be challenged only on two grounds, namely, (i) lack of legislative competence, and (ii) violation of any fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provision as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. and othersv. Mc Dowell and CO. and others,(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 709. It was observed as follows: It is enough for us to say that by whatever name it is characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In other words, say, if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that Court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the Legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisions of Section 129 of the Act on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. It confers right to all the citizens to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Article 19(1)(d) confers rights on every citizen to move freely throughout the territory of India. The petitioner has not shown in what manner these rights have been curtailed by enacting the provisions of Section 129 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act permits a person to drive or ride on a motor cycle of any class or description but he has to wear protective headgear (helmet) conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that wearing of a protective headgear is more injurious to a person wearing it because the driver or rider has to put a heavy load over his head while driving or riding on a motor cycle and this will put hindrance particularly the person driving the motor cycle. Secondly, it is urged that it will be difficult for him to see comfortably the side view either towards right or left because of the nature of the headgear.;