No Ambiguity In Rules Prescribing Colour Or Description Of Uniform For Drivers Of Auto Rickshaws And Taxis: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the Rules prescribing colour and description of uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis in the national capital, observing that there is no ambiguity in the same.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad upheld the validity of Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993, which prescribes that a auto rickshaw driver shall wear a khaki uniform with a name plate.

The bench also upheld the validity of a standing order issued on June 08, 1989, under Section 88(11) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, prescribing the colour of a uniform for a driver of tourist vehicle for summer and winter.

Observing that the purpose of prescribing a uniform is for identification, the bench said:

“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. 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 and the colour and the uniform as specified in S.O. No. 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act are specific and there is no ambiguity.”

The court dismissed a public interest litigation moved by Chaalak Shakti, a Trade Union of drivers and individual autorickshaw and taxi drivers, claiming that there was no clarity on the uniform color or specifications.

“…the competence of the Central Government 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 contention of the Petitioners that there is no requirement of a uniform and the prescription of uniform is vague or arbitrary and is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted,” the court said.

It added that the challenge to the impugned Rules does not meet the test of manifest arbitrariness as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shayara v. Union of India & Ors.

“It cannot be said that Rule 7 of the DMV Rules or S.O. No. 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arbitrary or violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

Title: Chaalak Shakti & Ors. v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 558

Click Here To Read Order