Bus operators, school bodies move HC against safety norms

School vehicle operators and association of schools today moved the Madras High Court challenging the stringent safety norms framed by the state government for operating vehicles following a mishap in which a six-year-old girl was killed while travelling in her school bus here in 2012.
A Full Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice M M Sundresh, took note of the fact that the objection of the petitioners was to certain conditions and hence there was no need to strike down the whole set of guidelines framed by the government.
It asked schools and vehicle operators to identify the major problems they experienced, list and present them to authorities for appropriate action.

The bench also referred the matter back to a two-judge bench for final adjudication.
The present batch of petitions were filed by Tamil Nadu Nursery, Primary, Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools Association and eight others, stating that certain provisions in the rules were "inconsistent with and contrary to provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules."
The matter relates to an accident in which a class II student, Shruthi, slipped through a hole on the floor of her school van on July 26, 2012 in Chennai, and came under its wheels.

The incident paved way for formation of special safety committees and introduction of special rules in 2012, all due to specific orders from the High Court.

Certain provisions are incapable of compliance as they can be contrary to other provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioners argued.
They took exception to the insistence on separating the driver's cabin with a grilled partition as well.
Pointing out that the petitioners do agree thatsafety of school children was of paramount importance, the bench said "it was not really an adversarial litigation."
"They, however, express some difficulties experienced in implementation and thus submit that those difficulties can be attended to, there would be no reason to challenge the provisions."
"Hence, it has been requested to the counsel for the petitioners to collectively submit the major problems in its implementation, so that it can be put to the state government," the bench said while adjourning the matter to April 20.