Jahanvi Agarwal
A plea challenging the provisions of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules and also mandating taxi and auto rickshaw drivers to wear uniforms and badges was dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad granted the Central and State government the power to establish the conditions on which permits may be granted.
The bench explicitly pronounced that it cannot be accepted that the power to prescribe uniforms for auto rickshaws and taxi drivers is inherently arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court pronounced that:
“The purpose of prescribing a uniform is for identification. The fact that there are different shades available in the same colour and, therefore, this leads to vagueness and is manifestly arbitrary also cannot be accepted.”
In the instant case, the organization of drivers, Chaalak Shakti filed the plea. It challenged Rule 7 of the DMV Rules, 1993, and permit conditions as notified in SO 415(E) issued on June 8, 1989, under section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
According to Rule 7 of the DMV Rules, when on duty, drivers of public service vehicles other than State Transports Undertakings are required to wear khaki uniforms with Hindi nameplates attached to them.
Permit conditions notified in 1989 provided that the drivers of tourist vehicles were required to wear white uniforms in the summer and blue or grey uniforms in the winter.
It was contended that specific details like color, fabric, and other particular of the trimming and accessories were not clear. Not only this but whether the uniform should be pant-shirts, safari-suits, or kurta-pajamas also lacked clarity.
It was further contended by the petitioner that the requirement of the auto and taxi drivers to wear uniforms is violating the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and freedom to practice their trade or profession, and their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench concluded that:
“The competence of Central governments to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of State government to lay down rules for uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles in Delhi by exercising its powers under Section 28 of the DMV Rules cannot be questioned.”
The petition was rejected because the Court found no reason to strike down the Rule or the permit condition:
“The colour and the description of the uniform for the drivers of vehicles running within the State is prescribed under Rule 7 of the DMV Rules (Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules) and the colour and the uniform as specified in SO No 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act (Motor Vehicle Act) are specific and there is no ambiguity.”
Case Name: Chaalak Shakti & Ors v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Diary Number: 6811/2021
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad