The Madras High Court has dismissed a review petition moved by an octogenarian advocate against the compulsory helmet rule.
When the petition came up for hearing before Justice N. Kirubakaran, the judge justified the rule saying that the direction was made only to save the lives of two-wheeler riders.
In June 2015, the High Court issued an order making helmet use compulsory while hearing an appeal for higher compensation in a motor accident claim case.
Noting that the insurance company had opposed the claim on the ground that the victim died due to non-wearing of helmet, he said, “About 41,330 people have died in accidents because of non-wearing of helmet in the State in the last ten years.”
Whenever an appropriate and relevant case, in which one of the problems of society is the subject matter, comes up before the court, it is the best occasion for the court to give suitable remedial directions to address the menace / problem and it cannot be termed as unwanted judicial activism, Justice Kirubakaran noted.
Referring to some allegations made against the court for passing the compulsory helmet order by petitioner R. Muthukrishnan, the judge stated that being a lawyer he was supposed to know the law.
‘Plea violates Act’
By seeking to review the order, he was indirectly seeking a direction to violate Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Noting that it is an appropriate case to impose high costs on the petitioner, the judge said considering the petitioner’s age and experience in the Bar, the court has refrained from imposing any costs.
The direction was made only to save the lives of two-wheeler riders, says judge
