Today(on 21st August),The Supreme Court of India will resume hearing on whether a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving licence covers operation of transport vehicles up to 7,500 kg. The case, with major implications for insurance and road safety, will be reviewed by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 21st August), The Supreme Court of India announced the resumption of its hearing on a critical legal issue concerning the validity of a driving licence for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) in authorizing the holder to operate a transport vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg. The matter, which has significant implications for insurance claims and road safety, will be addressed by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
The decision to proceed with the hearing comes after Attorney General R. Venkataramani, representing the Central Government, informed the bench that while the process to amend the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988, was “almost complete,” the proposed amendments have not yet been presented in Parliament. Venkataramani stated-
“The revised Bill could be introduced in Parliament during the Winter session.”
suggesting that the bench either defer the hearing until the amendments are cleared by the House or continue with the case.
Despite the Attorney General’s suggestions, the bench, which includes Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P.S. Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, opted to continue with the hearing. The bench noted that they had already invested time in examining the matter, making it prudent to proceed without waiting for the legislative process to conclude. This legal question has sparked numerous disputes, particularly regarding the payment of claims by insurance companies in accidents involving transport vehicles driven by individuals with LMV licenses.
The issue first arose on April 16, when the Supreme Court deferred the hearing after the Attorney General submitted a note outlining that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had completed consultations leading to proposed amendments to the MV Act. These amendments were anticipated to be presented before the newly constituted Lok Sabha after the general elections.
ALSO READ: Guidelines for Prosecuting Guardians of Minors Who Drive Without Licence Issued by HC
The court recorded that-
“In its communication dated April 15, 2024, the Ministry has provided details of the proposed statute amendment.”
In the note, the Attorney General requested that the proceedings be postponed until the last week of July 2024 to allow the Union Government to introduce the amendments before Parliament.
The bench agreed, stating-
“Given the upcoming General Elections, the Attorney General for India requests deferring these proceedings until the last week of July 2024, allowing the Union government to present a proposal for amending the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to the newly constituted Parliament after the elections.”
The court acknowledged that the potential impact of the proposed amendments on the current legal question would be addressed during the hearing, leading to the deferment of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court previously questioned whether a revision in law was necessary regarding the legal issue of whether a person holding a driving license for an LMV is entitled to drive a transport vehicle of specific weight legally. The apex court sought the Attorney General’s assistance in addressing this legal query, considering its far-reaching consequences.
During the deliberations, the bench highlighted the policy implications, emphasizing that the issue affects “the livelihood of lakhs of people.” The court pointed out the necessity for the government to take a “fresh look” at the matter at the policy level.
The key legal question under examination is –
“Whether a person with a light motor vehicle (LMV) driving license is authorized to drive a transport vehicle of the LMV class with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg.”
The bench further stated that understanding the Union Ministry’s stance would be crucial, especially after the court was informed that the government had accepted the Supreme Court’s 2017 verdict in the Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited case. This ruling clarified that transport vehicles with a gross weight not exceeding 7,500 kg fall under the definition of an LMV, leading to subsequent amendments to align the rules with the judgment.
Implications of the Mukund Dewangan Case
The 2017 Mukund Dewangan case was pivotal in shaping the legal landscape surrounding the issue. The three-judge bench in that case ruled that transport vehicles with a gross weight of 7,500 kg or less are not excluded from the LMV category. The decision has had wide-reaching effects, as noted by the current bench:
“There could be thousands of drivers nationwide relying on the Dewangan judgment. This matter is not a constitutional issue but a purely statutory one.”
However, the current bench also raised concerns about the broader implications of the law, especially regarding road safety and the social impact.
The court observed-
“This issue involves not only legal questions but also the social impact of the law. Road safety must be weighed against the law’s social objectives, and we must consider whether it causes significant hardships. Social policy issues are not meant to be decided by a Constitution bench.”
The ongoing hearing, which resumed on July 18 of last year, involves 76 petitions that challenge the legal standing established by the Mukund Dewangan judgment. The lead petition in this matter was filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. The Motor Vehicles Act prescribes distinct regimes for issuing driving licenses for different vehicle categories, which is at the heart of the current legal debate.
The issue was referred to a larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U.U. Lalit (since retired). The referral was based on the argument that certain provisions of the law were not adequately considered in the Mukund Dewangan judgment, thereby necessitating a reexamination of the controversy.
