Judgment

DUTT, J. :- The only question that is involved in this petition relates to the validity of Rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 and a notification dated July 8, 1986 issued by the respondent No. 3, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, in exercise of his powers under Section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, inter alia, directing that in order to ensure adequate safety of two-wheeler riders, wearing of protective helmets is made compulsory for riders of motor-cycles and scooters, as envisaged by Rule 498-A, with effect from August 1, 1986.

2. Rule 498-A provides as follows :-

"Rule 498-A. Crash helmets to be worn - No person shall drive a motor-cycle or a scooter in a public place unless such driver wears a crash helmet :

Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a person professing Sikh religion and wears a turban."

3. The petitioner, who is a student and has a permanent driving licence for a two-wheeler vehicle, filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the said notification as also of Rule 498-A on the ground that the same was violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended by the petitioner before the High Court that as section 85-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was yet to be enforced, Rule 498-A was illegal and ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also contended that the wearing of helmets preventing the free flow of breeze to the head would result in giddiness and affect sight and hearing.

4. The petitioner filed an affidavit of one Dr. Prabhakar Korada wherein it has been stated inter alia that continuous wearing of helmets can raise the pressure leading to irritation, confusion, headaches, giddiness, falling of hair etc.

5. The High Court has overruled the contentions of the petitioner that the said notification or the provision of Rule 498-A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules is violative of Article 19(1)(d) or Article 21 of the Constitution or that it is illegal or ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The High Court also relied upon medical opinions of some Neuro-Surgeons of repute and came to the finding that wearing of helmets would not cause any ailment whatsoever as contended by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the validity of the notification and the provision of Rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence this petition for special leave.

6. At this stage, it may be noticed that by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act XXVII of 1977, a new section being Section 85-A was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter reffered to as the Act. Section 85-A provides as follows:-

"S. 85-A. - Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a side car) on a motor cycle of any class shall, while in a public place, wear a protective headgear of such description as may be specified by the Central Government by rules made by it in this behalf, and different descriptions of headgears may be specified in such rules in relation to different circumstances or different class of motor cycles :

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place, wearing a turban :

Provided further that the Central Government may, by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think fit."

7. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of Act XXVII of 1977 provides that the Amendment Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Amendment Act. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of Act XXVII of 1977, the Central Government by a notification dated May 14, 1980 fixed November 1, 1980 as the date on whic