State Govt Can't Usurp Centre's Power To Regulate Driving Schools Under S.12 Motor Vehicles Act: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-16

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Curbs State's Power to Regulate Driving Schools, Strikes Down Key Clauses in Transport Circular

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling clarifying the division of powers between the Centre and State governments, the Kerala High Court has held that the State government and its Transport Commissioner cannot usurp the powers vested exclusively with the Central Government to regulate driving schools under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Justice N.Nagareshesh , delivering the judgment on a batch of writ petitions, struck down several key provisions of the controversial Circular No. 4/2024 issued by the Kerala Transport Commissionerate. The court found that these provisions encroached upon the rule-making domain of the Central Government as defined under Section 12 of the Act.

---

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a series of writ petitions filed by various driving school associations, owners, and driving licence aspirants. They challenged the validity of Circular No. 4/2024, dated February 21, 2024, and a subsequent Government Order (G.O.) dated May 4, 2024, which introduced sweeping reforms to the driving licence testing process and the regulation of driving schools in Kerala.

The petitioners argued that the new rules, such as setting a 15-year age limit for test vehicles, prohibiting automatic and electric cars for tests, and mandating dashboard cameras, were arbitrary, unworkable, and issued without legal authority, infringing upon their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments: * The primary contention was that Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exclusively empowers the Central Government to frame rules for licensing and regulating driving schools. * They argued that specific matters like the age limit of vehicles (governed by Section 59), equipment in training vehicles, and qualifications for instructors fall squarely within the Centre's legislative competence. * The State's circular, therefore, was an act of "legislative overreach" that would cripple the functioning of nearly all driving schools in the state.

State's Defence: * The State of Kerala and the Transport Commissioner defended the circular, arguing it was intended to streamline the testing process, enhance road safety, and ensure candidates were competent to handle modern vehicles. * They relied on Section 213 of the Act and Rule 405 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which empower the Transport Commissioner, as the head of the department, to issue instructions for the effective implementation of the Act. * The government asserted that the changes were necessary to address the high number of road accidents and were in harmony with the spirit of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

Court's Analysis: A Clear Demarcation of Power

Justice Nagareshesh undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework, particularly Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court noted that this section provides an exhaustive list of matters on which the Central Government can make rules concerning driving schools.

The judgment emphasized a clear distinction between the Centre's power to regulate driving schools and the State's power to conduct driving tests . The court observed:

"Section 12 thus gives exhaustive powers to the Central Government to make provisions for the purpose of licensing and regulating by the State Government Schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles and matters connected therewith... The State Government or Transport Commissioner cannot usurp the power which is vested with the Central Government in the matter of regulation of Driving Schools."

The court systematically examined each contested clause of the circular:

Struck Down: Provisions setting an age limit for test vehicles, specifying vehicle types (e.g., banning automatic/electric cars, requiring >95cc motorcycles), and mandating dashboard cameras and VLTD were set aside. The court found these directly encroached upon powers granted to the Centre under Section 12(2)(i) and Section 59.

Upheld: Provisions relating to the conduct of the driving test itself were upheld. This included new ground test manoeuvres (angular parking, zig-zag driving), conducting road tests in traffic, and limiting the daily number of tests per officer. The court reasoned that these were procedural instructions for the effective implementation of the driving test under Rule 15 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and did not conflict with the Act.

The Final Verdict

The High Court partially allowed the writ petitions, striking down the specific clauses in Circular No. 4/2024 and the related G.O. that were found to be beyond the State's jurisdiction. The provisions concerning the methodology and procedure of the driving test itself were sustained as valid exercises of the Transport Commissioner's administrative powers.

This verdict serves as a crucial reminder of the federal structure embedded within the Motor Vehicles Act, preventing state authorities from overstepping their mandate and ensuring uniformity in the regulation of driving schools as envisioned by the Parliament.