Madras High Court dismisses plea challenging helmet rule

The First bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, before which the petition filed by Muthukrishnan, an advocate, came up, warned him that his petition would not be entertained in future if the sum was not paid. The bench directed him to pay the sum to the TN mediation and conciliation centre in 15 days.

Muthukrishnan sought to assail the public notice issued by the Home Secretary making helmet wearing compulsory. The petitioner submitted that the G.O. was without any authority of law. Directing two-wheelers to wear helmet and seizing vehicle documents and driving license for failure to obey the rule, reminded of the Emergency in 1975, he said.

The bench said Rule 206 of TN Motor Vehicle Rules provided for compounding of offences on certain terms. The exemption for wearing of helmet is provided in Rule 417-A. The most material fact is that all these aspects had received the attention of the single Judge when he passed the order. Till the judgment stands, it is good law and has to be followed.

“Since, the petitioner is an advocate, he very well knows legal procedure and consequences. To once again raise the issue is nothing but a publicity stunt. It is high time value is assigned to judicial time which is spent on such matters and insistence of the petitioners to go on to argue such matters. The petitioner must pay for it”, the Bench said.