In a remarkable, robust, recent and rational 121-page judgment titled Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala and Others in SSCR No. 20 of 2021 and 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110, the Kerala High Court has issued a set of directions to ensure road safety and adherence with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the wake of the rising number of accidents reported concerning the Sabarimala pilgrims who travel in buses and other contract carriages. It must be mentioned that a Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumar issued the directions that were issued on a suo motu matter taken up by the Kerala High Court based on a report by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner pertaining to the functioning of the safe zone project. The project has been operational since November 15, 2021. The Bench discovered that despite several guidelines in place, vehicles were permitted to run on public roads disregarding road safety standards, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety and life of passengers and other road users.

To start with, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by Justice Anil K Surendran for a Bench of Kerala High Court comprising of himself and Justice PG Ajithkumar sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, has filed this Report regarding the functioning of Safe Zone Project, Sabarimala, by the Motor Vehicles Department, with offices at Elavunkal, Erumeli and Kuttikkanam. The project provides for accident and break down assistance for motor vehicles and also rescue operations in motor accidents. Under Safe Zone Project, teams of officers in vehicles patrol the accident prone routes covering Elavunkal, Erumeli and Kuttikkanam.

There are also quick response teams and an ambulance. In addition to this, break down assistance is provided with the aid of recovery vehicles and mechanics. Safe Zone Project 2021-22 has been operational from the commencement of Mandala-Makaravilakku festival for the current year, from 15.11.2021. The Special Officer, Safe Zone Project, has reported that a total of Rs.68 Lakhs is allocated for the project, out of which Rs.20 Lakhs was sanctioned on 16.12.2021 and received on 21.12.2021. Safe Zone Project has so far attended 40 major accidents, 758 major break downs and 536 minor break downs. Along with the report of the Special Commissioner, the details of the Safe Zone Project 2021-22 submitted by its Controlling Officer and Special Officer are placed on record.

Be it noted, the Bench then points out in para 3 that:
On 05.01.2022, when this report came up for consideration, Registry was directed to incorporate the news report that appeared in an online media regarding a motor accident, which occurred in the 1 st week of December, 2021, involving two contract carriages carrying Sabarimala pilgrims, in which two pilgrims sustained fatal injuries. Copy of that news report was handed over to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Amicus Curiae for Special Commissioner, Sabarimala. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the 2nd respondent-Transport Commissioner, the 3rd respondent-State Police Chief and also the 4th respondent-District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta.

It is worth noting that the Bench then discloses in para 109 that:
In Jijith [2019 (1) KHC 463] it was held that, exhibition of writings or figures with the sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract or stage carriage service should not be permitted by levying fee under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The exhibition of writings and figures on vehicles by its very nature are intended to attract attention, which would cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles, cyclists and even pedestrians on the public road. Driver distraction is one of the major causes of road accidents, which is a situation where the attention of the driver is diverted to any other forms of activities, which may affect the concentration of driving activity as well as the safety of the passengers and others on public road. Earning of revenue by the State by the levy of fee under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules or generation of some additional income by the operator of the transport vehicle should not be at the cost of public safety.

Most significantly and also most remarkably, what forms the cornerstone of this noteworthy judgment is then laid bare in para 120 holding that:
In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this SSCR with the following directions;

1. The 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner, through the Enforcement Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department, and the 3rd respondent State Police Chief, through the District Police Chief of the concerned Districts shall ensure strict enforcement of the Road Safety Policy and also the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, in terms of the directions contained in the decision of the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran [(2018) 13 SCC 516] and they shall also ensure strict enforcement of the prohibition contained in the decision of the Apex Court in Avishek Goenka [(2012) 5 SCC 321], against tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of motor vehicles.
    
2. In view of the law laid down in the decisions in Jijith [2019 (1) KHC 463], Saji K.M. [2019 (3) KHC 836] and Principal, Sabari PTB Smaraka H.S.S. [2020 (2) KLJ 662] the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner, through the Enforcement Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department, and the 3rd respondent State Police Chief, through the District Police Chief of the concerned Districts, shall prevent the use of contract carriages and other transport vehicles on public place:
   1. flouting the safety standards prescribed in AIS-008 and AIS-052 (Rev.1) 2008, after replacing the prototype approved lights, light-signalling devices and reflectors with after- market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights, etc.;
       
   2. without maintaining lighting and light-signalling devices and also retro-reflectors as per the individual specifications, namely, number, position, width, height, length, geometric visibility, orientation, etc. specified in AIS-008;
       
   3. with high-power audio systems producing loud sound with rating of several thousand watts PMPO, impairing the hearing of the driver and the passengers and causing distraction to other road users;
       
   4. with continuously blinking DJ rotating LED lights, multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights in the passenger compartment, by converting the passenger compartment as a dancing floor, causing distraction to the driver of that vehicle and also to other road users;
       
   5. with multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights and also booster amplifiers, equalizer, DJ mixer, etc., with illuminated control panels in the driver cabin, causing glare and reflection of light on the windscreen of the vehicle, endangering the safety of the passengers and other road users;
       
   6. mixing up of AC and DC power supply for highpower audio systems with DJ mixer, DJ dancing lights, laser lights, etc., violating safety standards, posing a potential fire hazard to the passengers of such vehicles;
       
   7. tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows, by pasting stickers, tint films, etc. upon the safety glass, fixing sliding cloth curtains, etc., in violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules;
       
   8. placing/hanging various objects in front of the windscreen and writing the name of the bus in the middle of the windscreen, above the level of the dashboard, causing obstruction to the clear vision of the driver, both to the front and through an angle of ninety degrees to his right or left hand side, in violation of Rule 278 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; and
       
   9. exhibiting writings, advertisements, graphics, figures, etc. with the sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract carriage service, causing distraction to the drivers of other vehicles and also cyclists and pedestrians on public road; since use of such vehicles in public place, flouting the standards in relation to road safety, is likely to endanger the safety of the passengers of such vehicles and also other road users.
   
    
3. The 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner, through the Enforcement Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department, and the 3rd respondent State Police Chief, through the District Police Chief of the concerned Districts, shall prevent the use of contract carriages and other transport vehicles on public place with multi-toned horn giving a succession of different notes or horn giving unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise, in violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
    
4. In view of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act, any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place a motor vehicle, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air-pollution, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both and he shall be disqualified for holding licence for a period of three months and for any second or subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Therefore, any person, who drives or causes or allows to be driven in any public place a contract carriage or other transport vehicle, violating the standards prescribed in AIS-008 and AIS-052 (Rev. 1) 2008, without maintaining lighting and light-signalling devices and also retro-reflectors as per the individual specifications, namely, number, position, width, height, length, geometric visibility, orientation, etc. specified in AIS-008; or after replacing the prototype approved lights, light-signalling devices and reflectors with after-market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights, etc., shall be proceeded against under sub-section (2) of Section 190 of the said Act for an offense punishable with the imprisonment and fine specified in that sub-section and he shall be disqualified for holding licence for a period of three months and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment and fine as specified in that sub-section.
    
5. In view of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted by Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 01.10.2020, a police officer or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall seize the driving licence held by the driver of a motor vehicle who has committed an offence under Section 190 and forward it to the licensing authority for disqualification or revocation proceedings under Section 19.
    
6. A transport vehicle governed by AIS-008, which is not installed with lighting and light-signalling devices and also retro-reflectors referred to in Para.6.0, conforming to the individual specifications for such lighting and light-signalling devices and also for retro-reflectors prescribed in Paras.6.1 to 6.20, or a transport vehicle governed by AIS-008, which is installed with lighting and light-signalling devices or retro-reflectors other than those referred to in Para.6.0, cannot be granted fitness certificate, since such a vehicle cannot be treated as a vehicle which complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. The certificate of fitness granted to such vehicle shall be cancelled by the prescribed authority, in accordance with the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In appropriate cases, the registering authority shall initiate proceedings to suspend or cancel the letter of authority granted or renewed under sub-rule (5) of Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules or forfeit security deposit, after affording the holder of letter of authority an opportunity of being heard.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 121 that:
The 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner and the 3rd respondent State Police Chief shall file action taken reports before this Court on or before 01.07.2022, which shall be placed before the Bench on 11.07.2022. Registrar General shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety for information.

In a nutshell, this extremely commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment in which Kerala High Court has notified several remarkable directions for road safety amid rising road accidents involving Sabarimala pilgrims which definitely ought to be implemented in its entirety. There should be certainly no let up or compromise on road safety. This alone is the only way that we can ensure that we don’t lose many precious lives in road accidents in the near future! No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh