In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 76-B(16) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which prohibits school buses older than 12 years from operating. A full bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled in favor of the State’s authority to regulate school transport safety.
Background of the Case
Three educational institutions—Ghanshyam Das Rungta Foundation (WPC No. 3191 of 2022), GDR Educational Society (WPC No. 3210 of 2022), and Jan Pragati Education Society (WPC No. 3369 of 2022)—challenged the validity of Rule 76-B(16), arguing that it exceeded the State’s regulatory powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners, represented by Advocate Siddharth Shukla, contended that Section 96 of the Act did not empower the State to impose an age limit on school buses. They further cited a previous Division Bench ruling in Dr. Sandeep Jain & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 2004/2017) which had declared a similar regulation for stage carriage vehicles ultra vires.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The petitioners’ primary argument was that Rule 76-B(16) conflicted with Section 41(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prescribes a 15-year registration validity for vehicles. They contended that the regulation was arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, the State, represented by Advocate General Prafull N Bharat along with Government Advocate Rahul Tamaskar, countered that ensuring the safety of school children was a paramount duty and that the State was well within its rights to impose restrictions under Section 96(2)(xxxiii) of the Act.
The court also considered the precedents set by the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 324] and S.K. Bhatia v. State of U.P. [AIR 1983 SC 988], which had upheld similar restrictions on the age of transport vehicles in the interest of public safety. The State relied on these judgments to justify its regulation, arguing that human safety takes precedence over commercial interests.
Court’s Ruling and Observations
The High Court rejected the petitioners’ challenge and ruled that Rule 76-B(16) was well within the State’s legislative competence. The bench noted that the previous Division Bench ruling in Dr. Sandeep Jain had not considered the Supreme Court’s binding decisions and thus could not override them.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Subhash Chandra, the court observed:
“The older the model, the less chances of the latest safety measures being built into the vehicle. Vintage vehicles are good for centenarian display of curios and cannot but be mobile menaces on our notoriously neglected highways.”
Further, the court emphasized the binding nature of Supreme Court rulings under Article 141 of the Constitution:
“The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system. It promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions.”
