The division judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the respondents to file a detailed reply giving the details with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Rule 167A in the state of Andhra Pradesh and in particular, the cities that find a mention in the table appended to the said Rule which includes, among others, the cities of Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam, and others numbering 13 in all.
Brief facts
In the present petition, certain shortcomings were highlighted by the Petitioner in regard to the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under and in particular, Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles (Seventeenth Amendment) Rules, 2021 (for short, “the Rules”).
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that out of 3703 accidental deaths 3042 were caused due to non-use of protective headgear by two-wheeler drivers. The Petitioner highlighted the issue that is that the official machinery has failed to implement the rules regarding the enforcement of the requirement to wear protective headgear, especially for two-wheeler drivers as well their pillion riders.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the issues raised by the Petitioner are of utmost public importance and need to be considered carefully.
The court directed the respondents to file a detailed reply giving the details with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Rule 167A in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
The court furthermore noted that the traffic department of the police should also note how many persons have been issued challans for failing to wear protective headgear, how many times the traffic police have physically checked drivers, and the amount of fine collected.
The court also directed the Police and the Legal Services Authority to launch campaigns emphasizing the negative consequences of not wearing protective headgear. In addition to promoting the campaign through electronic media, the drive should be publicized in vernacular and English papers which have wide circulation in the state of Andhra Pradesh besides publicizing in the electronic media. There should be a particular date that notifies the public, especially those who ride two wheels, that after that point, there will be zero tolerance for anyone discovered to be breaking the Motor Vehicles Act's provisions or the rules outlined thereunder.
The court also noted that the use of body cameras by law enforcement personnel, such as police and transport officials, to control traffic and carry out enforcement drives, has a clear purpose: to record event proceedings for use as evidence against the offending driver or individual in court. It also serves to verify that the law enforcement official followed the law while punishing the offending driver or individual.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court listed the matter on 21.08.2024.
Case Title: Thandava Yogesh V. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ninala Jayasurya
Case No.: WP(PIL) NO: 116 of 2024
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
