Students Can't Be Discriminated From Other Passengers While Boarding Bus, Merely For Availing Student Concession Rates: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court last week directed the State Police Chief to issue directions to ensure that law and order problems are not created between students and bus owners/employees, regarding student concession rates.

The Court held that students cannot be discriminated from other passengers while boarding the bus, merely for availing student concession rates.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted thus:

“But as long as the student concessions are in force, the owners and the employees of a bus cannot take a discriminative stand against the students while boarding buses, only because they are paying the concession rate. Students and other passengers are on an equal footing. It is the duty of the police to see that there is no law and order problem in connection with the same. The State police chief will issue necessary directions to all its subordinates to avert all such law and order problems because of this rift between the students and the employees of the buses.”

The Court was hearing plea of three bus conductors accused of wrongfully restraining students from boarding the buses on the evening of November 30, 2012. They were charged under Section 190 (2) (using vehicle in unsafe conditions) read with Section 196 (driving uninsured vehicle) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter, MV Act).

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations were accepted, offences under Section 190(2) read with Section 196 of the MV Act were not made out.

Agreeing, the Court said allegation against the conductors that they did not allow the students to board the bus cannot be treated as violation of the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air-pollution. It also stated that section 196 pertains to driving uninsured vehicle and there were no such allegations raised against the conductors. It thus held that Sections 190(2) and 196 were not attracted against the conductors.

Court then noted that Rule 89 (p) and (q) provides certain discretion to conductors to refuse entry of further passengers, if the vehicle has reached the permissible capacity to carry passengers or for any other good and sufficient reason. However, the prosecution had not raised such a case against the conductors.

Accordingly, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

However, Court observed that there was a disturbing trend among the employees of private and public bus services disallowing students to board the buses. “In almost all bus stands and bus stops in Kerala, the employees of the buses do not allow the students to board the bus and prefer other passengers instead of students.”

The Court remarked that the bus owners have grievances regarding the meagre amount collected from the students and that such concession rates have not been enhanced over the years. It noted that increasing student concession rates is a policy matter and the bus owners have to take it up with the government and transport department. The Court held thus:

“The value of 50 paise and 1 rupee has changed a lot over the years. But whether the student concession is to be enhanced is a policy matter of the government in relation to which this court cannot issue any direction. But student organisations and the government should look into the changed realities. Bus owners have to take up this demand with the government and the transport department.”

The Court held that as long as the student concession rates are in force, the bus owners/employees cannot discriminate the students for giving student concession rates. The Court then directed the Police to ensure that no such law and order problems are created due to the rift between the owners/employees and students due to the student concession rates.

Case title: Joseph John v State of Kerala & Connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 387

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocates Anil Sivaraman and Sreedhar Ravindran

Counsel for the respondents: Public Prosecutor Advocate Maya M N

Click Here To Read/Download The Order