The Kerala High Court is slated to examine a petition questioning the constitutional validity of Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which penalises guardians or vehicle owners when offences under the Act are committed by minors or juveniles.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas admitted the plea and directed the respondents to file a reply, before posting the matter on December 10 for further hearing.
The petition was filed by a 30-year-old woman (petitioner) from Kozhikode, who owns a scooter and had recently faced legal action after her neighbour, a minor, took her scooter for an unauthorised ride. The petitioner was booked for an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) for this lapse.
The woman argued that the provisions under Section 199A unfairly placed liability on guardians, parents, and vehicle owners when minors drive without a license, even if the guardian had no involvement in the act.
The petitioner argued that no statutory obligation existed for a guardian to ensure their ward’s compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act.
The plea further contended that the Section makes an arbitrary presumption that any juvenile’s use of a motor vehicle has the guardian’s or owner’s implicit consent, even when no assistance or encouragement was provided.
"Section 199A makes the guardian punishable even in cases where the juvenile was not aided or abetted by the guardian to commit an offence. The provision of the section requires an arbitrary presumption that the use of the motor vehicle by the juvenile was with the consent of the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle," the petition stated.
The petitioner also highlighted that Section 180 and Section 181 of the MV Act placed penalties which were limited to a maximum of three months imprisonment while dealing with minor or unlicensed drivers and permit owners. However, Section 199A subjected guardians to imprisonment of up to three years, much harsher than the punishment stipulated in Sections 180 and 181.
Additionally, while Sections 180 and 181 offences were compoundable, the offence under Section 199A was not, leaving the guardian with limited options for settling or mitigating the matter.
The petitioner contended that the provision was arbitrary from this standpoint as well.
She has also pointed out that the impact on vehicle owners in such cases is such that it infringes upon their constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution, since the penal consequences include the automatic cancellation of the vehicle’s registration.
The petitioner added that the Act lacked procedural safeguards to protect innocent vehicle owners, leaving them vulnerable to unjust penalties without due consideration, violating their fundamental rights of equality, freedom, and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
With respect to the juveniles, the petitioner argued that Section 199A of the MV Act conflicted with juvenile justice protections by prohibiting joint trials of juveniles and adults under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
This restriction limited a guardian’s ability to cross-examine or present evidence and also conflicted with Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects juveniles from self-incrimination.
The petitioner has also challenged the penalty of denying minors a license until age 25, claiming that it infringes on their freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and impacts equal opportunity rights under Article 15(3), potentially limiting their future employment opportunities.
The petitioner has, therefore, urged the Court to declare Section 199A of the MV Act unconstitutional.
The petition was filed by advocates Tharreq AnverK, M Devesh, Arun Chand, K Salma Jennath, Rassal Janardhanan A, and Govind G Nair.