High Court demands data on women challaned for riding helmetless
Over five years after the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognisance of women riding away from law by not wearing safety helmets, a Division Bench has asked the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to file detailed data on challans issued to those riding two-wheeler or sitting pillion without headgear.
The direction came during the hearing of a suo motu or court on its own motion case against the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents. The court specifically instructed counsel representing the two States and the UT to submit a tabular report illustrating the number of traffic citations issued against women riders and pillion riders for helmet non-compliance.
The court’s order follows amendments to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandate helmet use for all motorcycle riders above the age of four. While Sikhs wearing turbans are exempted under the law, the amendment reinforces mandatory helmet usage for all others, including women.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal adjourned the matter to December 4 for further hearing.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today made the Union of India a party in the ongoing public interest litigation on making helmets mandatory. The developments took place during the hearing of a suo motu case on traffic regulation and road safety.
The high court had earlier put the two States and Chandigarh on notice on through the home and transport secretaries. The notice came after a Tribune news report on an accident involving a woman rider in Chandigarh was brought to the court’s notice by law researcher Anil Saini.
The high court had made helmets compulsory while issuing a slew of directions on traffic regulation and road safety in the case of Namit Kumar versus Union Territory of Chandigarh decided in July 1998. Saini, in his note addressed to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for treating the news report as public interest litigation, asserted that in its order the Bench had restricted the exemption only to Sikhs wearing turban while riding.
