Observing that the mandatory helmet wearing rule was not implemented properly in surburban areas and people in some districts were not even aware of it, the Madras High Court today said it may have call each district Superintendent of Police to appear in person before it.
"Helmet rules are not implemented properly in suburban areas. In some of the districts, people do not know about the rules. If this is the position, I may have to call each district Superintendent of Police to appear in person,"Justice N Kirubakaran said.
Dismissing the petition filed by one J S N Nimmu Vasanth, seeking to set aside the June 17, 2015 order making helmet wearing mandatory, the judge asked the Government Pleader if the helmet rules were being implemented in its true spirit throughout the state or not.
The GP said that the rules are implemented strictly, to which the Judge said it has come to his knowledge that the rules are not implemented in districts.
Dismissing the woman's petition, the judge observed that "hairstyle seems to be more important than safety for the petitioner and she cannot change her hairstyle for the sake of wearing helmet."
Justice Kirubakaran referred to the report of a three- member Supreme Court-appointed committee headed by Justice K Radhakrishnan and said its April 22, 2014 order had directed scrutiny and monitoring enforcement of statutory provisions, including Motor Vehicles Act, to make roads safer.
It had also directed that helmet laws be made applicable all over the country, both for main and pillion riders and suggested two wheeler owners carry an extra helmet.
The petitioner contended that an analysis of such mishaps could show that the cause could be attributed to other factors like drunken driving, driving at speed, crashing and extremely poor road conditions. Forgetting these and focusing only on not wearing helmet as the cause for mishaps has given a boost to helmet sales, she contended.
She alleged that undue importance is given to helmet campaigning alone, which has become negative and has increased the rate of accidental deaths in many ways by diverting state government's attention from core issues they have to attend.
Rejecting these submissions, the judge noted that when the SC-constituted committee had come out with stringent steps to deal with traffic offences, "the directions given by this Court are in consonance with the provisions of law."
He refuted the contention that views of the public should have been called for before implementation, saying there is no need to call for any opinion to implement an existing law. Necessary information and data were already obtained by the HC by making the Centre and the state government as respondents.
