A state law was passed for compulsory wearing of helmets by the drivers of two-wheelers. An affected person challenges the law as violative of his freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). Decide.
TheSayeed Answered question March 15, 2024
Facts of the Case:
- A state law mandates the compulsory wearing of helmets by two-wheeler drivers.
Issues in the Case:
- Can an affected person challenge the compulsory helmet law as violative of his freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d)?
Principle:
- Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
- However, Article 19(5) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public.
Judgement:
- According to Article 19(5), the affected person cannot challenge the compulsory helmet law as violative of his freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d).
- The State has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement for the benefit of the general public.
- In Ajay Canu v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 156, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of compulsory helmet laws, stating that they serve the greater good and impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement.
- Therefore, the compulsory helmet law is deemed valid as it promotes public safety and imposes reasonable restrictions on individual freedoms.
Based on the interpretation of Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(5) by the Supreme Court in Ajay Canu v. Union of India, the compulsory helmet law is considered valid and not violative of the freedom of movement guaranteed under the Constitution.
TheSayeed Answered question March 15, 2024