( 1 ) DR. (Prof.) C. S. Subba Rao and Mr. S. N. Rao, practising advocates of this Court invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution of India in purported public interest and accordingly pray for issuance of appropriate directions directing the respondents herein to implement the provisions of Ss. 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the act ) requiring compulsory wearing of protective headgear (helmet) by two wheeler drivers and pillion riders.

( 2 ) IN the letter addressed to the Honourable the Chief Justice, Mr. Rao (first petitioner) inter alia states that "due to nonwearing of helmets every month hundreds of two wheeler riders are dying in Hyderabad city and in rest of the State. So this mandatory provision of the Motor Vehicles Act must be strictly implemented forthwith. "

( 3 ) THE petitioners further, state that two wheeler vehicle is very vulnerable as its balance can be tilted with a slight touch by another vehicle, skidding and individual losing balance due to absent mindedness. They have given variety of reasons for the fall of a scooter by itself. It is further stated that "two wheeler can fall on its own if a small stone negotiates its front wheel tyre and when the driver or the pillion rider also falls and dashes his head against the pavement or a stone there will be a visible or invisible damages. Even though no head injury may be seen the brain inside will get the shock ,of the accident whenever the head hits against hard matter on the road. "

( 4 ) IT is further averred that leave alone the individual and the pillion rider who ventures to ride with the courageous driver both not wearing the. Helmets, the fate of the members of their family depending on them for their livelihood will be deplorable. No sensible man whether in the medical or legal profession, be a social worker or a politician ought to oppose this helpful device of wearing a crash helmet for the safety of both the two-wheeler driver and its pillion rider.

( 5 ) IT is under those circumstances, the petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india in purported public interest.

( 6 ) THIS Court having taken up the writ petition on file directed notices to be served upon the respondents herein. Notices are accordingly served on all the respondents. In response to the notices, the Inspector general of Police (Headquarters), A. P. , hyderabad filed a detailed affidavit, in which it is conceded that Section 129 of the Act and Rule 437 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor vehicles Rules prescribe that the wearing of protective headgear is mandatory while driving a two-wheeler in a public place. It is also conceded that many accidental deaths are being reported due to head injuries to the two-wheeler drivers. In the year 1999 alone 1250 two wheelers were involved in road accidents, whereas in the year 2000, up to 30-4-2000, 455 two wheelers were involved in road accidents in Hyderabad City alone. The Inspector General of Police proceeds to state that in the year 1989 wearing of headgear was made compulsory in Andhra pradesh but due to protest and demand by the large section of citizens the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 303, transport, dated 23-12-1989 directing the wearing of headgear as optional. It is under those circumstances, the Transport and police Officials are not insisting the public for wearing helmets.

( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is however, contended that the decision of the Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 303, dated 23-12-1989 reflects the policy decision of the State, and the question as to whether the wearing of such headgear is to be made compulsory being a policy matter is under re-consideration of the Government.

( 8 ) THE question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Government could have at all issued notification vide G. O. Ms. No. 303, dated 23-12-1989 directing that wearing of protective headgear (Hel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document