Supreme Court to Continue Hearing on Whether Light Motor Vehicle Licence Holders Can Legally Drive Transport Vehicles Up to 7,500 kg
The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to continue its examination of the legal issue concerning whether a person with a light motor vehicle (LMV) driving licence can legally drive a transport vehicle with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg. This decision was made by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, following a request from Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, who indicated that consultations to amend the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988 were nearly finished but that the proposed changes have not yet been presented to Parliament.
The Attorney General mentioned that the amended Bill could be introduced during the Winter session of Parliament and suggested that the bench either postpone the hearing until the amendments are approved or continue with the proceedings. The bench, which also includes Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, opted to proceed with the hearing, stating that they had already devoted time to the matter and would not wait for Parliament to pass the amendments.
This legal question has sparked numerous disputes, particularly concerning insurance companies’ liability in accident cases involving transport vehicles driven by individuals holding LMV licences. Previously, on April 16, the bench had delayed the hearing after the Attorney General submitted a note indicating that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had completed consultations and proposed amendments to the MV Act, which would be introduced to the newly constituted Parliament following general elections.
The Ministry communicated on April 15, 2024, providing details of the proposed amendment. Given the impending general elections, the Attorney General requested that the proceedings be deferred until the last week of July 2024 to allow the government to present the amendment to the newly formed Parliament.
The bench acknowledged that the potential impact of the proposed amendments would be considered during the hearing. Previously, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre whether a change in the law was necessary regarding whether an LMV licence holder could legally drive a transport vehicle within a specific weight limit. The court also sought the Attorney General’s assistance in addressing this legal question.
Highlighting that these policy matters affect “the livelihood of lakhs of people,” the court emphasized that the government needed to reassess the issue at the policy level. The legal question under consideration is whether a person with an LMV driving licence can legally drive a transport vehicle in the LMV category with an unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg.
The bench noted that understanding the union ministry’s stance was essential, especially after being informed that the Centre had accepted the Supreme Court’s 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and amended the rules to align with that judgment. In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench had ruled that transport vehicles with a gross weight not exceeding 7,500 kg are not excluded from the LMV definition.
The bench highlighted that many drivers nationwide might be operating under the Dewangan judgment and emphasized that this issue involves more than just the law but also its social implications. The bench stressed the need to balance road safety with the law’s social purpose and noted that addressing these issues falls outside the scope of a Constitution bench’s purview.
The Constitution bench began hearing 76 petitions related to this legal question on July 18 last year, with the lead petition filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. The Motor Vehicles Act outlines different licensing regimes for various vehicle categories, and the case was referred to the larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench led by Justice U U Lalit (since retired). It was suggested that certain provisions of the law were overlooked in the Mukund Dewangan judgment and that the issue required further examination.
(With inputs from Agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
