Supreme Courtroom Seeks Centre’s Response On Change In Driving Licence Legislation

New Delhi:

Sep 13 The Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday requested the Union authorities if a change in legislation is warranted on the authorized query of whether or not an individual holding a driving licence for a light-weight motorcar is entitled to legally drive a transport car of a selected weight.

Observing that these are coverage points impacting the livelihood of lakhs of individuals, a five-judge structure bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud mentioned the federal government must take a “contemporary look” on the matter whereas asserting that it must be taken up on the coverage degree.

The highest court docket requested the Centre to wrap up the train inside two months and apprise it concerning the resolution taken.

It mentioned any interpretation of the legislation should duly consider legitimate considerations of highway security and the security of different customers of public transport.

The highest court docket had earlier sought the help of Lawyer Basic R Venkataramani in coping with a authorized query about whether or not an individual holding a driving licence for a light-weight motorcar is entitled to legally drive a transport car of a selected weight.

The structure bench had mentioned understanding the place of the Ministry of Street Transport and Highways will probably be vital after it was argued that the highest court docket’s 2017 verdict within the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance coverage Firm Restricted was accepted by the Centre and guidelines have been amended to align them with the judgement.

Within the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the highest court docket had held that transport automobiles, the gross weight of which doesn’t exceed 7,500 kg, usually are not excluded from the definition of LMV.

“There could also be lakhs of drivers throughout the nation who’re engaged on the idea of Dewangan judgment. This isn’t a constitutional concern. It’s purely a statutory concern,” the bench, additionally comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, mentioned.

“That is simply not the query of legislation but in addition the social impression of the legislation… Street security needs to be balanced with the social objective of the legislation and it’s a must to see if this causes critical hardships. We can’t determine problems with social coverage in a structure bench,” it mentioned.

The highest court docket mentioned as soon as the federal government informs its stand to the court docket, the listening to within the structure bench will probably be taken up thereafter.

The structure bench is coping with a authorized query which reads: “Whether or not an individual holding a driving licence in respect of ‘mild motorcar’ may on the power of that licence, be entitled to drive a ‘transport car of sunshine motorcar class’ having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg.” On July 18, the structure bench commenced listening to as many as 76 petitions to take care of the authorized query.

It had then heard the arguments of senior advocate Siddharth Dave, showing for one of many petitioners, on alleged anomalies within the Motor Car Act with regard to regimes for coping with the grant of driving licenses for various classes of automobiles.

The lead petition was filed by M/s Bajaj Alliance Basic Insurance coverage Co Ltd.

The authorized query has given rise to numerous disputes over fee of claims by insurance coverage firms in accident circumstances involving transport automobiles being pushed by these having licences to drive LMVs.

The Motor Car Act offers for various regimes for the granting of driving licences for various classes of automobiles. The matter was referred to the bigger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit, since retired.

It was mentioned that sure provisions of the legislation weren’t seen by the highest court docket within the Mukund Dewangan judgement and “the controversy in query must be revisited”.

(Apart from the headline, this story has not been edited by Ednbox employees and is printed from a syndicated feed.)