Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a petition highlighting certain serious shortcomings regarding implementation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the MV Act’) and Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles (Seventeenth Amendment) Rules, 2021 (‘the Rules’), the Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ., and Ninala Jayasurya, J., stated that the issues highlighted in the present petition were of wide public importance and were needed to be considered seriously. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to file a detailed reply giving the details regarding implementation of Rule 167A of the Rules, which provides for electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety. The Court stated that the department of police dealing with traffic should also reflect the number of people against whom challan were issued due to non-use of protective headgear, the number of physical checks conducted by the traffic police authorities and the amount of fine collected.
Background
It was stated that in Andhra Pradesh, there were approximately 3703 accidental deaths out of which 3042 were attributed to the deaths due to non-use of protective headgear by two-wheeler drivers. Photographs taken at a very busy junction in Vijayawada showed that out of a number of two-wheeler drivers and even the pillion riders, none of them were wearing any protective headgear. It was highlighted that the official machinery had failed to implement the rules regarding the enforcement of the requirement to wear protective headgear especially for two-wheeler drivers and their pillion riders.
It was stated that while Vijayawada appeared to be covered under the surveillance cameras installed on major roads, no effort appeared to have been made to ensure proper enforcement of the requirement to wear helmets.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the issues highlighted in the present petition were of wide public importance and were needed to be considered seriously. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to file a detailed reply giving the details regarding implementation of Rule 167A of the Rules in Andhra Pradesh, particularly, the cities mentioned in the Rules, including Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and 13 others. The Court stated that the department of police dealing with traffic should also reflect the number of people against whom challan were issued due to non-usage of protective headgear, the number of physical checks conducted by the traffic police authorities and the amount of fine collected.
The Court stated that the use of body cameras by the law enforcement officers, who manage the traffic or carry out any enforcement drive, was quite clear and that was to record the proceedings of an event, which could be used as evidence and also ensure that the law enforcement official had acted as per the law while penalizing the offending driver or person.
The Court directed that the Legal Services Authority and the police authorities to start campaigns to highlighting the evil effects on account of non-usage of the protective headgear. This campaign 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. The Court stated that the dates should be fixed informing the citizenry and in particular, those who are using two wheelers, that beyond a particular date, there would be absolutely zero tolerance towards those who were violating the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules framed there under.
The matter would next be listed on 21-08-2024.
[Thandava Yogesh v. State of A.P., WP(PIL) No. 116 of 2024, Order dated 26-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development; Government Pleader for Home; Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; Government Pleader for General Administration and S. Pranathi, Advocate.
