'So Called Important Persons Must Not Be Exempted': Madras High Court Upholds Ban On Use Of Crash Guards, Bull Bars In Motor Vehicles

The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld a notification issued by the Central government dated December 7, 2017 directing all State governments and Union Territories to prohibit the use of crash guards and bull bars in motor vehicles.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu observed that the Court cannot interfere in such policy matters and accordingly ruled,

"At the end of the day, it appears that public interest may have impelled the Central Government to issue the notice and, on a matter of policy where the Central Government perceives that a thing is necessary in public interest, the court would not willy-nilly intervene unless it finds the policy to be absurd or objectionable to the meanest mind."

The Bench further noted that larger vehicles with crash guards often behave like 'bullies' on the road.

"It may also do well to take judicial notice of the larger, higher private passenger vehicles that are fitted with crash guards and behave as bullies on roads, particularly on the highways", the Court remarked.

After recording the submission of the State government that it had accepted the Centre's directions and had begun to penalise vehicles fitted with crash guards and bull bars, the Court ordered that such an implementation should be universal and without any exemption. 

"It is hoped that the enforcement is across the board and that the so-called important persons are not exempted from the rule", the Court stated. 

It was also noted by the Bench that the aforementioned Central government notification had stipulated that fitment of crash guards or bull bars was in violation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 which prohibits alterations in variance to specifications mentioned in the registration certificate of the vehicle concerned.

The orders were passed while adjudicating upon two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions which sought the effective implementation of the 2017 notification of the Centre.

Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola, counsel for one of the petitioners, contended that crash guards often change the basic specifications of a vehicle and increases its length. He also submitted that scientific studies have been conducted to prove that the after-market fitments were not safe for motorists.

On the other hand, senior counsel AR.L. Sundaresan representing manufacturers of crash guards and bull bars, claimed that crash guards only provide additional safety and hence sought liberty to convince the Centre.

Accordingly, the Bench disposed of the petitions by ruling that the orders passed by them would not prevent the manufacturers from making an appropriate representation to the Centre and the latter from considering it in the proper perspective.

Case Title: LD Lenin Paul v. The Principal Secretary / Transport Commissioner and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order