Why Not Display Advertisements On Rear Side Of Buses? Supreme Court Asks KSRTC To Submit A New Scheme
story
On Thursday, the Supreme Court asked the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to formulate a scheme to continue with advertisements on buses in a manner which will not cause distraction or violate rules.Taking note of the High Court view that the display of advertisements on the sides of the buses can cause distraction, the Supreme Court asked why can't a scheme be formulated to...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court asked the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to formulate a scheme to continue with advertisements on buses in a manner which will not cause distraction or violate rules.
Taking note of the High Court view that the display of advertisements on the sides of the buses can cause distraction, the Supreme Court asked why can't a scheme be formulated to have advertisements on the rear side of the buses.
"Now that (Kerala) High Court has taken a view that the advertisements on the side also can cause distraction and may create traffic-related problems, can you submit a scheme to us or the High Court - within how much time, in a phased manner you can do it?", a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari asked.
The Court was hearing the KSRTC's plea challenging the Kerala High Court's direction to remove advertisements from buses.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had ordered that transport vehicles owned or operated by KSRTC and KURTC won't be permitted to exhibit any advertisements since they are likely to distract the attention of other drivers.
"We are tentatively inclined to protect you, in the meanwhile, you also come up with a proposal. Ultimately, we will request the High Court to examine the proposal. We will try to balance it", the Bench said today while adjourning the matter to January 9.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate VV Giri submitted that the advertisements are a source of revenue for the Transport Corporation.
"But nothing on windshields, side glass, or rearview mirrors", the senior counsel clarified.
The Court then queried what was the type of Advertisements on the buses.
"Advertisements of heroines, tooth pastes, something commercial, etc... There's no question of distraction. It has been going on for some time.."
The Bench also expressed concern on buses plying with graphic stickers on the windshields, having unauthorized LED lights, and without proper fitness certificates. Giri clarified that such practises are done by private contract carriages and not by the KSRTC.
"KSRTC never does it, we are a statutory corporation. We don't do these things. ..The Court should come down against contract carriages that operate without fitness certificates", Giri said.
KSRTC is a statutory corporation and the permission of the Government is required, which lays down conditions as well, Giri explained. "We don't make any advertisements on the rearview mirrors or windshields or...We do it as per the statutory permission that is granted."
With the busy 'Sabarimala' and 'Magaravilaku' season approaching, Giri said, finding out buses with no advertisements on the body would be very difficult for the Corporation.
"Why don't you evolve a mechanism where the advertisements can be made on the rear side of the Buses?", the Court then asked.
It's done that way, the advocate said.
Implying that ads that are at the rear side can cause a distraction to other drivers might be slightly far-reaching, Giri further added.
"If the High Court feels that something has to be done, it should have asked the State government to see that it is regulated in a better way. Because permission has been granted by the State government", the senior counsel said.
Despite running into huge losses with debt of Rs. 9,000 crores, KSRTC submitted that it runs its buses to solely provide transport services to the general public in the State. It is the sole stage carrier that has permission for transport for the Sabarimala pilgrimage, for which approximately 500 buses are pooled, the plea stated.
The petition submitted that the suo-moto proceedings undertaken by the Kerala High Court were not placed before the Chief Justice and therefore, violated set procedure.
It added that the KSRTC has been running its buses with all the requisite permissions and sanctions as mandated under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The petition further said that the advertisements in question help the financially distressed corporation to raise Rs. 1.5 crores every month.
While stating that the primary reason for passing the impugned order was that the advertisements caused distractions and were against public safety, the petition highlighted that the High Court had not formed any Committee to substantiate the said findings.
As per the petition, the absence of any such report or findings by any committee establishes that the High Court had erred in attributing its own findings to a matter which pertains to public safety and policy, without any supporting and authentic supporting material.
Case Title: KSRTC Vs State of Kerala | SLP (C) NO. 23478/2022