Holding

Rule 498‑A is a valid exercise of the State's rule‑making power under Section 91 and the compulsory helmet requirement is a reasonable restriction in the public interest, not violative of Articles 19(1)(d) or 21.

Summary

Ajay Canu, a student with a two-wheeler licence, challenged a Hyderabad police notification and Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rule 498-A that made wearing crash helmets compulsory for motorcycle and scooter riders. He argued that the rule was ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act because Section 85‑A had not been brought into force, and that the compulsory helmet requirement infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Rule 498‑A was validly framed under the State's rule‑making power in Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the requirement served a public‑safety purpose, making any restriction reasonable under Article 19(5). The Court also rejected the claim that helmets cause health problems, relying on medical opinions. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, upholding the helmet rule and the police notification.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 498‑A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules is within the State's rule‑making power under Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Whether the absence or non‑enforcement of Section 85‑A renders Rule 498‑A ultra vires the Act.
Whether compulsory wearing of helmets infringes the fundamental right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether any such restriction, if it exists, is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public safety under Article 19(5).
Whether the Hyderabad City Police Act notification issued under Section 21(1) is valid.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964s. Rule 498-A
Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(d), s. Article 19(5), s. Article 21
Hyderabad City Police Acts. 21(1)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 85-A, s. 91(1), s. 91(2)(i)
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1977s. 85-A

Subjects

helmetcompulsorymotor vehiclesfundamental rightsArticle 19Article 21rule‑making powerSection 91public safetytraffic regulation

Judgment

AJAY CANU
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA'& ORS.

AUGUST 29, 1988

B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, J.)

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.
c 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.
D
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
A
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.
B
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. c
The petitioner appealed to this Court by Special Leave. It was
contended on his behalf that in view of the cancellation of the notifica-
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 head of the driver of a two-
wheeler vehicle is the main target of an accident and often it is fatal to
the driver. By insisting on the wearing of a helmet by the driver driving
a two-wheeler vehicle, rule 498-A intends to protect the head from
B being totally injured in the case of an accident. Clause (i) is wide enough
to include the driver of a motor cycle or a scooter. The expression "any
person" in clause (i) also includes within it a driver of a two-wheeler
vehicle. [638E-F]

3. Clause (i) is also intended for the prevention of danger, injury
C or annoyance to the public or any person including the driver of a ,
two-wheeler vehicle. [638G I

4. Rule 498-A is, therefore, quite legal and valid, in spite of the
absence of any provision like section 85-A. [638H]

O 5. There can be no doubt that rule 498-A is framed for the
benefit, welfare and the safe journey by a person in a two-wheeler
vehicle. It aims at prevention of any accident being fatal to the driver of
a two-wheeler vehicle causing annoyance to the public and obstruction
to the free flow of trafficfor the time being. [63'JGJ

i;;: 6. Even assuming that rule 498-A is not covered by clause (i) of
sub-section (2), it is quite immaterial inasmuch as such a rule can be
framed in exercise of the general power under sub-section (1) for the
purpose of carrying into effect Chapter VI relating to con1rol of traffic. [6390I

7. There is hardly any fundamental right against any act aimed at
Ji' doing some public good. [640A] .

8. Even assuming that rule 498-A has put a restriction on the
exercise of a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d), such restriction
being In the interest of the general public, is a reasonable restriction
protected by Article 19(5) of the Constitution. [640B]
G
9. As rule 498-A has been framed in accordance with procedure
established by law, that is, in exercise of the ulre making power confer-
red on the State Government under Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, the question of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution does
not arise. [640BJ
H
AJAY CANU v. U.0.1. [DUTI, J.] 635

IO. Rule 498-A helps the driver ot a two•wheeler to drive the A
vehicle in exercise of his freedom of movement without being subjected
to a constant apprehension of '! fatal head i11jury, if any accident takes
place. l639HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 1252 of 1988. B

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.87 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W.P. 10800/87.

P.A. Choudhary, TVSN Chari, C. Badrinath and Mrs. Sunitha
_ Rao for the Petitioner. c
K.Parasaran, Attorney General, G. Chandra and Miss A. Sub-
hashini for the Respondents.

·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
Dutt, J. The only question that is involved in this petition relates
to the validity of rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1964 and a notification dated July 8, 1986 issued by the respondent No.
3, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, In exer-
cise of his Powers under section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police
Act, inter alia, directing that in.order to ensure adequate safety of E
two-wheeler riders, wearing of protective.helmets is made compulsory
for riders of motor-cycles and scooters, as·envisaged by rule 498-A,
with effect from August l, 1986.

Rule498-A provides as follows:
F
"Rule 498-A. Crash helrnets to be worn No person shall
drive a motor-cycle or a scooter in a public place unless
such driver wears a crash helmet:

Provided that nothing in this rule--shall apply to a
person professing-Sikh religion and wears a turban." G

The petitioner, who is. a student and has a permanent driVine_d
licence for a two-wheeler vehicle, filed a writ petition in the Andhra
Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the said notification as
also of rule 498-A on the ground that the same was violative of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article H

I
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
'
A 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended
by the petitioner before the High Court that as section 85-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was yet to be enforced, rule 498-A was
illegal and ultra vires the Motor Vehicles A~t. It was also contended
that the wearing of helmets preventing the free flo·w of breeze to the
head would result in giddiness and affect sight and hearing.

The petitioner filed an affidavit of one Dr. Prabhakar Korada
wherein it has been stated inter alia that continuous wearing of helmets
can raise the pressure leading to irritation, confusion, headaches, gid-
diness, falling of hair etc.

C The High Court has overruled the contentions of the petitioner
that the said notification or the provision of rule 498-A of the Andhra
Pradesh Motor Vehicles rules is violative of Article 19(1)(d) or Article
21 of the Constitution or that it is illegal or ultra vires the provisions of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Court also relied upon medi-
cal opinions of some Neuro-Surgeons of repute and came to the find-
D ing that wearing of helmets would not cause any ailment whatsoever as
contended by the petitioner. In that view.of the matter, the High Court
dismissed the writ petition upholding the validity of the notification
and the provision of rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles
Rules. Hence this petition for special leave.

E At this stage, it may be noticed that by Motor Vehicles (Amend-
ment) Act XXVII of 1977, a new section being section 85-A was
inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' Section 85-A provides as follows:

"S. 85-A. Every person driving or riding (otherwise than
F in a side car) on a motor cycle of any class shall, while in a
public place, wear a protective headgear of such descrip-
tion as may be specified by the Central Government by
rules made by it in this behalf, and different descriptions of
headgears may be specified in such rules in relation to dif-
ferent circumstances or different class of motor cycles:
G
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:

H Provided further that the Central Government may,

I
AJAY CANU v. U.0.1. [DUTI, J.) 637

by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think A
fit."

Sub-section (2) of section 1 of Act XXVII of 1977 provides that
the Amendment Act shall come into force on such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and
different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the B
Amendment Act. In view of sub-section (2) of section 1 of Act XXVII
of 1977, the Central Government by a notification dated May 14, 1980
fixed November 1, 1980 as the date on which the provision of section
85-A would come into force. But, by another notification dated
October 31, 1980, the earlier notification dated May 14, 1980 fixing the
date of enforcement of section 85-A as November 1, 1980 was c
cancelled.

It is contended by Mr. Ghatate, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, that in view of the cancellation of the notifica-
tion dated May 14, 1980, section 85-A has not come into force and, as
such, there is 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 is submitted that in the
absence of any specific provision in the Act, rule 498-A is ultra vires
the Act· itself and, consequently, the impugned notification issued
under section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act is illegal and
should be struck down. E

As there was some doubt as to whether section 85-A had come
into force by virtue of the notification dated May 14, 1980 and whether
the Central Government had the power to cancel the said notification
by the subsequent notification dated October 31, 1980, we thought it
expedient to request the learned Attorney General to appear and F
assist the Court. In compliance with our request, the learned Attorney
General has appeared before us, but we are of the view that no assis-
tance will be necessary on the point, as we do not think that we are
called upon to adjudicate upon the question for the reasons stated
hereafter. The learned Attorney General has, however, assisted us in
disposing of this petition, and we are thankful to him. G

We shall proceed on the assumption that section 85-A has not yet
been enforced by the Central Government., We may now deal with the
question as to the legality or otherwise of rule 498-A. The said rule has
been framed by the State Government by virtue of its rule making
power under clause (i) of sub-sectioR (2) of section 91 of the Act. H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A Sub-section (1) of section 91 and clause (i) of sub-section (2) provhle
as follows:

"91.(1) The State Government may make rules for the
purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this
Chapter.
B
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the forego-
ing power, such rules may provide for

(i) generally, the prevention of danger, injury or an-
c noyance to the public or any person, or of danger or injury
to property or of obstruction to traffic;"

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that rule 498-A does not
and cannot come within the rule making power of the State under
D clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act, for it does not
refer to the driver of a motor-cycle or scooter. It is true that clause (i)
does not refer to the driver of a motor-cycle or a scoote:, but it is much
wider inasmuch as it provides, inter alia, for the prevention of danger,
injury or annoyance to the public or any person. It is not disputed that
rule 498-A has been framed for the purpose of protecting the head
E from being injured in case of an accident. It is common knowledge that
head of the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle is the main target of an
accident and often it is fatal to the driver. By insisting on the wearing
of a helmet by the driver driving a two-wheeler vehicle, rule 498-A
intends to protect the head from being fatally injured in case of an
accident. Clause (i) is wide enough to include the driver of a motor-
F cycle or a scooter. The expression "any person" in clause (i) also
inlucdes within it a driver of a two-wheeler vehicle. We are unable to
accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the
words "any person" do not include the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle
and the rule is intended to prevent the danger, injury or annoyance to
the public or any person other than the driver of a two-wheeler vehi-
G cle. In our view, clause (i) is also intended for the prevention of
danger, injury or annoyance to the public or any person including the
driver of a two-wheeler vehicle. In our view, clause (i) is also intended
for the prevention of danger, in jury or annoyance to the public or any
person including the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle. rule 498-A is,
therefore, quite legal and valid, in spite of the absence of any provision
H like section 85-A.
AJAY CANU v. U.0.1. IDUTI, J.I 639

It is submitted by the learned Attorney General that even assum-
A
ing that rule 498-A does not come within the purview of clause (i) of
sub-section (2) of section 91, still the State Government could frame
such a rule under sub-section (1) of section 91. The learned Attorney
General submits that the clauses under sub-section (2) of section 91
are only illustrative and not exhaustive and the power is really under
sub-section (1). In support of his contention, he has referred to a B
decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others v. Union of India and
others, AIR 1971 SC 771 where it has been observed by this Court that
it is a well-established proposition of law that where specific power is
conferred without prejudice to the generally of the general power
already specified, the particular power is only illustrative and does not
in any way restrict the general power. In the instant case also, the
general power is in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) contains illust- c
rations and does not, jn any way, restrict the general power under
sub-section (1). Thus, even assuming that rule 498-A is not covered by
clause (i) of sub-section (2), it is quite immaterial inasmuch as such a
rule can be framed in exercise of the general power under sub-section
( 1) for the purpose o' carrying into effect Chapter VI relating to con- D
trol of traffic. There is, therfore, no substance in the contention of the
petitioner that rule 498-A is ultra vires the provision of the Act.

The next attack to rule 498-A and to the impugned notification is
based on the fundamental right of a citizen. It is submitted that the
compulsion for the wearing of a helmet by the driver of a two-wheeler E
vehicle is an infringement of the freedom of movement of such a
driver, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, and that
such compulsion by rule 498-A interfering with the freedom of move-
ment, not having been made in accordance with the procedure es-
tablished by law, is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The
contention does not at all commend to us. Rule 498-A ensures protec- F
tion and safety to the head of the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle in
case of an accident. There can be no doubt that rule 498-A is framed
for the benefit, welfare and the safe journey by a person in a two-
wheeler vehicle. It aims at prevention of any accident being fatal to the
driver of a two-wheeler vehicle causing annoyance to the public and
obstruction to the free flow of traffic for the time being. It is difficult to G
accept the contention of the petitioner that the compulsion for putting
on a headgear or helmet by the driver, as provided by rule 498-A,
I restricts or curtails the freedom of movement. On the contrary, in our
opinion, it helps the driver of a two-wheeler vehicle to drive the vehi-
cle in exercise of his freedom of movement without being subjected to
a constant apprehension of a fatal head injury, if any accident takes H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A place. We do not think that there is any fundamental right against any
act aimed at doing some public good. Even assuming that the
impugned rule has put a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(d), such restriction being in the interest of
the genc:ral public, is a reasonable restriction protected by Anicle
19(5) of the Constitution. As rule 498-A has been framed in accor-
a dance with the procedure established by law, that is, in exercise of the
rule making power conferred on the State Government under section
91 of the Act, as discussed above, the question of infringement of
Article 21 of the Constitution does not arise. The contention of the
petitioner that rule 498-A and the impugned notification dated July 8,
1986 issued by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of his powers
under section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, infringe the
fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(d) and Article
21 of the Constitution, is devoid of merit and is rejected.

As to the contention of the petitioner that the wearing of the
helmet causes some ailments, we do not think that there is any merit in
J? the contention, particularly in view of the medical opinions of some
Neuro-Surgeons of repute, as referred to by the High Court in its
judgment. The contention has not also been seriously pressed before
us. The High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in rejecting the
contention.
E For the reasons aforesaid, the special leave petition is dismissed.
As no notice has been sel"Ved on the respondents, there will be no
order as to costs.

N.V.K. Petition dismissed.