Exemption To Sikhs From Wearing Helmets Is A Reasonable Classification Under Article 14, Not Based On Religion: Bombay High Court
The exemption given to Sikhs from wearing helmets is not based on religion or caste but is a 'reasonable' classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore does not violate any fundamental rights, held the Bombay High Court recently. [2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304]
Sitting at the Nagpur bench, the division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta dismissed a petition filed by a law student, who challenged the exemption granted to Sikh community members from wearing helmets, which is otherwise mandatory for every citizen under section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA).
"The exemption given to Sikhs is not on the basis of caste or creed or religion. The statistical data in respect of accidents involving two-wheelers and deaths caused due to head injuries is rising day by day. The provisions are implemented in the interests of the society and to protect lives of people. In the interest of the society, Section 129 of the MV Act has made compulsory use of protective headgear/helmet by rider and pillion rider of two-wheeler motorcycles," the judges observed in the June 29 order.
The bench noted the petitioner's contention that the Government is doing 'class legislation' by denying equal protection of laws and making certain people offender, which is not supported by any provisions of the Constitution of India.
"Equality before the law ensures no special privilege to any person or class. When all people in India are being governed by the Rule of Law and have equal protection of law, such classification is not justified," the petitioner argued.
However, the bench did not seem to be impressed with the contentions and held that the same were 'misconceived' as the judges pointed out that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. The said Article, the judges stated, guarantees equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination.
"However, it permits 'reasonable classification' meaning thereby the Government can make distinct class for different groups if there is a valid and logical basis and the public purpose. Permissible classification essentially depends upon two conditions, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on a intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from the others left out of the group and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object to be achieved by the statute in question," the judges held.
With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition.
Appearance:
Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari appeared as a petitioner in-person.
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Kartik Shukul assisted by Advocate Chirag Batra represented Union of India.
Case Title: Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari vs Union of India (Criminal Writ Petition 416 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 304