State Can't Bar Use Of Automatic Or Electric Light Motor Vehicles For Driving Test : Kerala High Court

The State Government, through its rule-making powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot restrict the use of automatic or electric vehicles for driving test, ruled the Kerala High Court.

The Court partially quashed Circular No. 4/2024 issued by the State Transport Commissionerate, asserting the primacy of the Central Government's authority in regulating motor driving training under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Justice N Nagaresh delivered the judgement in a batch of connected writ petitions challenging several provisions of the circular and the accompanying Government Order dated May 4, 2024, issued by the Government of Kerala. The petitioners included individual driving school owners, associations, and learner licence holders, who contended that the impugned directives were ultra vires the State's authority.

The Circular issued by the Kerala Transport Commissionerate as a reformative measure to make the driving license testing process more robust to improve road safety and standardize training. The circular imposed conditions - such as age restrictions on training vehicles, mandatory use of gear based motorcycles, and installation of surveillance equipment. It fixed the upper limits for the number of candidates tested per day and prohibited the use of vehicles over 15 years old for testing. The circular introduced additional testing components for licence of light motor vehicles which included angular parking, parallel parking, zig-zag driving and gradient tests.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The counsel for the Petitioners argued that under section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the power to make rules relating to licensing and regulation of Schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles, vests with the Central Government. The State government therefore cannot issue any Circular encroaching upon the legislative sphere where the Central Government alone has powers.

It was argued that section 59 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers only the Central Government to prescribe the age limit of motor vehicles.

The petitioners argued that they have fundamental rights under Article 19 and 21, which are infracted by the unworkable restriction imposed by the State Government.

The petitioners contended that there is no statutory liability on Driving Schools to conduct Driving Test or to provide vehicles for the Test. “Conducting Driving Test is the statutory duty of the State. Vehicles of Driving Schools are used only by way of convenience.” they added

It was also argued that the installation of dashboard cameras are not required either under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules or under the State Rules. It was contended that there is a legitimate expectation for every applicant to have his application considered on the basis of rules, regulations and circulars prevailing. They also argued that the State Government has no power to prescribe qualifications for Driving Instructors.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Special Government Pleader and representative of the Transport Commissioner defended the circular on the grounds of public safety and administrative efficiency.

The Transport Commissioner stated that the instructions in Circular are intended to streamline the procedure of Test of Competence in harmony with Rule 15 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules prescribed for the conduct of Test of Competence in driving motor vehicles. It was submitted that the Transport Commissioner, as the head of the Motor Vehicles Department under Rule 405 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, has the authority to issue such instructions. It was further submitted that the foot-operated gears are now industry standard and motorcycles with handlebar gear shifting are obsolete. They added that “the instructions are issued taking into account the innovation and improvement in vehicle mechanism and engineering, traffic conditions prevailing in the State.”

Findings

Justice Nagaresh extensively dealt with section 213 and section 12 of the Act to understand the rule making power of the State and Central Government. The Court noted that though the section 213 empowers the State Government to appoint Transport Officers, such appointment of officers is for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act.

“The State Government is empowered under Section 213 to make rules to regulate the discharge of functions by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department. The State Government can also lay down rules prescribing duties to be performed by them and powers to be exercised. However, since the rule making power relating to Driving Schools are specifically conferred on the Central Government under Section 12, the powers conferred on the officers under the Motor Vehicles Department including Transport Commissioner cannot encroach upon the rule making power specifically conferred on the Central Government.” Court added

The Court observed that the Rule 405 does not confer any right on the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department including the Transport Commissioner to make any rules relating to regulation of Driving Schools. The officers of the Motor Vehicles Department conducting the driving tests should hold tests strictly according to the provisions contained in Rule 15. “The Transport Commissioner or the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department cannot depart from the provisions contained in Rule 15 though the Transport Commissioner may issue instructions for conduct of driving tests effectively as per the provisions contained in Rule 15(3). Such instructions cannot go beyond the statutory provisions and should be for effective implementation of Rule 15”

Justice Nagaresh undertook a clause by clause review of the impugned circular and carefully delineated between the executive instruction permissible under law and substantive rules that exceed the State's jurisdiction.

The court held that the mandatory use of specific motorcycles with foot-operated gears and minimum 92 cc capacity and prohibition on use of automatic or electric vehicles for LMV tests was in violation to section 12 (2) (i) of the Act. The court noted that the power to fix age limit of motor vehicles is conferred only on Central Government under section 59 of the Act, hence the ban on vehicles more than 15 years old for testing was held to be violative of section 59. The court observed that the mandatory installation of dashboard cameras and vehicle location tracking device in LMVs used by driving schools was violative of section 12 (2) (i) of the Act. and Prescribing qualifications for driving school instructors were held to be ultra vires.

“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 concluded

The Court upheld the enhanced testing elements such as angular parking, parallel parking, zig-zag driving and gradient tests. The court observed that the changes made can be treated as one made for effective implementation of driving tests. Road tests protocols including conducting Part II on the traffic roads and fixing daily caps on the number of driving tests were upheld. The court observed that these provisions were not in conflict with any of the provisions contained in section 12 and rule 15 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The court noted that power to prescribe qualifications for driving school instructors is with the Central government under section 12(k). The court observed that there is no mandate that candidates with only certain qualifications be selected and appointed. “Consideration of such candidates can be only subject to the satisfaction of qualifications if any prescribed by the Central Government… The provision does not warrant interference" it observed.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of with partial relief.

Case Title - All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases

Case No - WP(C) 10615/2024 and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424

Counsel for Petitioner - O D Sivadas, Premchand M, M B Sandeep, K P Sreeja, Aswathy Jayaraj, Vishnu K K, Shiyon Biju, S M Prasanth, T Ramprasad Unni, T H Aravind. Aswini Sankar R S, Devika R, T J Seema, Bhavana Velayudhan, Devrathan S, Arun Kumar M A, S Sanal Kumar(Sr),

Counsel for Respondent - P Santhosh Kumar - Special Government Pleader, T C Krishna, Latha Anand

Click here to read the judgment