Fatigue-Detection Cameras, Police Verification: Kerala High Court Upholds Mandatory Safety Measures For Public Transport Operators

Justice Mohammed Nias C P, delivered the judgment dismissing a batch of writ petitions petitions filed by stage carriage operators, private bus operators, taxi drivers' associations, educational institutions, and travel operators.

It said:

“In a State where there were 1017 numbers of accidents involving the stage carriages between 2023 to 2025 and more of them being reported almost every other day, measures introduced by the State to curb or reduce such incidents are not only in conformity with the Act and its Rules, but are also rooted in public interest. Such measures cannot be stultified on the strength of hyper-technical arguments. The impugned orders are lawful and perfectly in line with the Act and Rules". 

The court said that the measures are admittedly "aimed at public interest" and when pitted against public interest, the right, if any, accorded to individual permit holders "must give way".

It held that the requirement of police verification of the antecedents "cannot be said to be antithetical" to the scheme in the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules.

It said that the instrumentalities of the State "would be neglecting their statutory duties" if they did not hold the permit holders responsible for ensuring the conformity of their operations with the laws of the land. 

Relying on Subhash Chandra and Others (1980) it held:

“The State's neglect in the area of policing public transport was held to be deplorable, but when it does so by prescribing a condition, the Court cannot be persuaded into little legalism and harmful negativism.”

The writ petitions were filed challenging the decisions of the STA dated 24.01.2025 and the circular of the Transport Commissioner dated 28.04.2025 mandating the installation of cameras with driver fatigue detection sensors, production of Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) and the installation of geo-fencing facilities.

The petitioners argued that the STA acted without jurisdiction, as only the State Government has rule-making powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They claimed the conditions imposed were arbitrary, introduced without proper notice, and would cause severe operational difficulties — including staff shortages due to the PCC requirement and increased financial burdens from installing new technology.

Several petitioners contended that existing provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules already regulated licensing, disqualification, and conduct of drivers and conductors. They argued that the new measures effectively supplanted the statutory framework and infringed upon their fundamental right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Counsel for educational institutions also argued that the order requiring CCTV cameras in school buses was issued without ample notice.

The State maintained that the measures were policy decisions in public interest aimed at improving road safety, curbing driver negligence. It was submitted that the STA has authority under Section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act to regulate transport policies and impose uniform conditions. It was further argued that the petitioner got sufficient time, as the impugned order was taken in the month of January 2025, to take such steps to comply with the directions of the STA.

It was further submitted that “the reasonableness and proportionality of the measures put in place by the impugned decision have to be examined from the perspective of the safety and convenience of the travelling public”

Findings

The Court held that the permit holders have no right of representation against regulatory measures/ policy decisions issued in the public interest, as stakeholders as those who are affected and interested in the measure are public at large.

“The rule 123 and 140 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules only require notice to persons who are reasonably likely to be affected by the issues under consideration, in the opinion of transport authorities, and only those are entitled to make representation under Rule 128.” it added.

It also noted that Section 67 does not limit the authority of the STA. “Section 68 signifies that the powers of the State Government and those of the STA are intended to coexist, with the latter being subordinate to the former," it noted.

The Court noted that the power to frame rules for providing the in-built security measures lies only with the Central Government and not with the State Government was considered in W.P.(C) No.36842 of 2023 and connected matters where it was found that the State had the power to maintain law and order and to safeguard the safety and security of the passengers.

The Court noted that the earlier judgment of the Kerala High Court and Division bench had already upheld similar requirements for CCTVs and speed governors in public vehicles as reasonable safety measures. It further noted that the measures were introduced in January 2025, and sufficient time was given for implementation of the impugned order.

Thus, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Kerala Taxi Drivers Organisation v State of Kerala and Anr and connected matters

Case No: WP(C) 17429/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 535

Counsel for Petitioner: Asok Kumar K P, Abdul Hameed Rafi, Rakesh Menon, Rilgin V Geroge, K T Raveendran, Akshara K P, Meera J Menon, Arathy P S, Anagha Manoj, M R Anison, Prasad Chandran, P A Rinusa, Annie Jacob, Dona Margaret P R, Anagha Renjith V R, M U Soorya, S Sreeja, P Mohandas, K Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, Gokul D Sudhakaran, R Bhaskara Krishnan, Bharath Mohan, Dr. K P Satheesan (Sr.), Sajeev Kumar K Gopal, Nazrin Banu, K V Gopinathan Nair, O D Sivadas.

Counsel for Respondents: Surya Binoy (Sr-GP)