Sikhs in turbans need not wear helmets; exemption doesn't violate equality: Court
Siya Goyal's father said his Ketan Agarwal had been arranged after their horoscopes were matched, with Ketan's family informing him that 27–28 gunas aligned and they approved of the alliance.
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the exemption given to Sikh men wearing turbans from wearing helmets while riding two-wheelers, saying the concession is based on “reasonable classification” and not religion. The court said the plea, which claimed the provision violated the right to equality, was misconceived.
A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta of the Nagpur bench passed the order on Monday while rejecting the petition filed by 23-year-old student Kirtesh Chaudhari. The plea had challenged a proviso to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, every person riding a two-wheeler has to wear a helmet. However, a proviso to the section says this requirement shall not apply to a Sikh person wearing a turban.
The petition argued that equality before the law means no person or class should have a special privilege. Opposing the plea, the Union government said the exemption amounted to a reasonable classification.
The high court accepted that view and said Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality, prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. “Article 14 permits reasonable classification, meaning, thereby the government can make distinct class for different groups if there is a valid and logical basis and a public purpose,” the court said. It added, “Exemption given to the Sikhs is not on the basis of caste or creed or religion.”
The court also said the law making helmets compulsory was framed to protect lives, but the exemption could not be said to violate any fundamental rights. With this finding, the high court dismissed the petition challenging the proviso under Section 129.