Rules mandating helmet use for two-wheeler drivers are constitutionally valid as they promote public safety and do not infringe constitutional rights.

1. These writ petitions are for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring that R.2 and R.3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 and R.498 - A of the (A.P.) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 are unconstitutional, illegal and void and consequently directing the respondents not to insist upon the general public wearing helmets compulsorily.

2. The averments in support of the writ petitions may be briefly stated: The petitioners are having two - wheeler vehicles and they drive them. R.498 - A was introduced by G.O.Ms. No. 983 dated 28-10-1976 insisting upon wearing helmets while driving two wheeler vehicles. Thereafter S.85 - A was inserted by amendment Act 27 of 1977 providing the wear of protective headgears in accordance with rules prescribed by Central Government. It is stated that the rules made by Central Government are contrary to S.85 - A of the Act and R.3 made by the Central Government as well as R.498 - A made by the State Government are ultra vires and unconstitutional.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K. R. K. Varaprasad, Sri Afzul Purkar, Sri Gangaiah Naidu and Sri Narain Bhaskara Rao at the outset contended that S.85A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder insisting upon the wear of helmets by drivers of two - wheeler vehicles are unconstitutional and the Central Rules are ultra vires and R.498 - A of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules is invalid as this rule purporting to be made under S.85 - A of the Act was framed even before S.85 - A was introduced and further S.85 - A empowered the Central Government only to frame rules. The learned Advocate General contended that R.498 - A of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules is made pursuant to the power conferred on the State Government to make rules under S.91 of the Act and sough to sustain the rule under S.91 of the Act only. In view of this the contention centering round the constitutional validity of S.85 - A of the Act and the rules made thereunder need not be considered. Regarding R.498 - A it is contended that the rule ultra vires and beyond the rule making power under S.91 of the Act and R.498 - A, abridges right of privacy and movement and this is violative of Art.19(1)(d) of the Constitution and also arbitrary and discriminatory resulting in breach of Art.14 of the Constitution.

4. To appreciate the contentions it is necessary to get at S.91 of the Motor Vehicles Act and R.498 - A of the A.P. State Rules. S.91 of the to the Extent relevant is as follows :
(i) "The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for (a) to (h);
(i) generally, the prevention of danger, injury or annoyance to public or any person, or of danger or injury to property or of obstruction to traffic, and
(j) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed."
R.498 - A is as follows :
"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 wearing a turban."
The initial contention is that R.498 - A is ultra vires S.91 as the rule is beyond the power conferred under S.91. At the outset the rule is sought to be sustained under the omnibus power of effectuating the provisions of Chapter VI. The caption of Chapter VI is "control of traffic" and diverse provisions have been made to regulate and ensure lubrication of traffic. S.71 is concerned with regulation of speed and restrictions on speed limit. S.74 empo