The recent move of the Tamil Nadu government to make it compulsory to carry the original driver licence while driving has been temporarily stalled following its challenge by way of three writ petitions filed at the Madras High Court.
Two PILs in this regard – one filed by Traffic Ramaswamy and the other on behalf of the NGO Justice for Denials – was due to be heard on Friday by the First Bench. However, as there was no sitting, the same has been adjourned to next week.
The state government had recently announced that starting September 1, those found driving vehicles without carrying their original driver license would be fine. The same was broadcast in leading news dailies and visual media channels. Following a circular containing the same warning, a memo to this effect was also circulated on August 28.
The petitioners have challenged this direction on grounds of lack of authority, public inconvenience and likelihood of increase in corruption. It has been contended that vehicles are often purchased on loan agreements and as a consequence, the original driver license often lies in the possession of financiers/creditors. The procedure for replacing a lost original license is tedious and often involves bribery. To compel the carrying of original licenses would, therefore, serve to provide greater avenues for corruption.
It has also been submitted that the ostensible object for the introduction of the impugned direction, i.e. the reduction of road accidents, will not be achieved through its implementation. The petition by Justice for Denials refers to NCRB statistics, according to which the leading causes for road accidents are drunken driving and failure to abide by traffic rules.
According to the petitioner, carrying of an original driver licence does not serve any purpose apart from causing public inconvenience. This position has also been argued on the reasoning that an original copy of a driver licence is not ordinarily necessary to make entries on the spot, unlike in the case of IDs such as ration card, bank book, passport etc.
It has also been pointed out that the existing law vests sufficient power with the authorities to impound the original after giving due notice if any traffic rules are broken or if road accidents take place.
The petitioner has also argued that to implement the impugned direction would be to supersede the provisions of the Central Act. If brought into effect, the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not be uniformly applicable to the country, given that other states do not mandate carrying of the original driver licence. On this reasoning, the petitioner has submitted that Section 28 of the Act does not give state the power to implement the impugned direction.
A third petition, preferred on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Lorry Owners’ Federation, making similar challenges to the impugned direction, came up for hearing yesterday before Justice M Duraiswamy. The petition emphasises particularly on the grievance that originals of driver licences are ordinarily deposited by employee-lorry drivers with their employers/lorry owners after due verification.
It was argued that to insist that the original Driver Licence be carried by the drivers at all times is impractical, particularly given the difficulties faced in replacing the license in the event of it being misplaced or damaged. To insist the same would thus affect the livelihood of the petitioners and the drivers engaged by them.
In the alternative, the petitioners have suggested, that verification of documents can be done through online portals. Reference has also been to the powers of concerned authorities to seize the vehicle or impound driver licences after notice, where required.
When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, Advocate General Vijay Narayan pointed out that the petitioner has failed to challenge relevant provisions under Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which lays down the duty of drivers to produce the driver licence on demand by the concerned authority. In this regard, driver’s license, as defined in Section 2 (10) of the Act refers to the driver’s licence issued by the competent authority and not a duplicate of the same.
Rule 139 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was also argued to be in favour of the state. As per the AG, this rule only provides for deference in the submission of the original driver’s licence where there is a satisfactory reason for it not being in the possession of the driver. The said rule has to be read with the proviso to Section 130 of the main Act. In effect, these provisions only contemplate an exemption from the immediate production of the original driver’s license were the same lies with another authorized officer for reasons beyond the control of the driver.
The AG also referred to statistics indicating that Tamil Nadu is the state with the second highest rates of road accidents in the country. He further alluded to observations by the Supreme Court committee on Road Safety that the use of duplicate licenses also enabled the use of canceled or suspended licenses.
All three petitions will now be heard by a Division Bench of the Court next week. In the meanwhile, the AG has given an undertaking that the impugned direction will not be implemented until September 5.
Reference-
- Bar & Bench
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
For more BLOG/ NEWs, CLICK HERE.
Please Subscribe for more updates.
Disclaimer:Â
Lawyers Gyan has no control over above-listed items as it is directly from the customer or taken from other sources. Despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your checks too. In case of any discrepancy please write to lawyersgyaan@gmail.com.
