Provision Penalising Guardian Of Minor Who Commits Offence Under Motor Vehicle Act Challenged In Kerala High Court

A petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 199A of Motor Vehicles Act which states that when any offence under the Act is committed by a juvenile, his guardian or owner of the vehicle shall be deemed to be guilty and proceeded against. Under the provision, the registration of the vehicle which the minor was using can be cancelled for 6 months. Further, the juvenile won't be given a valid driving licence until the child attains 25 years.During the hearing on Monday (November 10) a single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas asked the respondents to file a reply to the plea and listed the matter on December 10. The petitioner submitted that the guardian is not required by any statute to ensure that his ward does not contravene provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. She argues that the Section presumes that the use of motor vehicle by a minor is always with the consent of the guardian or owner of the vehicle. The petitioner submitted that the guardian can be found guilty even if he did not aid or abet the commission of the offence. The petition argues:“Unless there is any such law, no guardian shall be made liable for punishment under Section 199A of the Act. Section 199A makes the guardian punishable even in cases where the juvenile was not aided or abetted by the guardian to commit an offence. The provision of the section requires an arbitrary presumption that the use of such motor vehicle by the juvenile was with the consent of the guardian of such juvenile or owner of the motor vehicle.”The petitioner contends that when no statute has put a responsibility on the guardian to see that his ward does not contravene the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the guardian cannot be punished for such contravention and any such punishment would be contrary to Article 20(1) of the Constitution.Section 180 and 181 penalises the minor or an adult without a valid driving license driving a vehicle and the owner of a vehicle letting such persons to drive his vehicle. Under both these provisions, the maximum term of imprisonment is 3 months. However, under Section 199A, a guardian or owner of the vehicle can be punished with 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner argued that even an adult contravening the provisions is given a much less sentence compared to the guardian who is punished merely because of his relation to the child offender. The petitioner also pointed out that when offences under Section 180 or 181 are compoundable, the offence under Section 199A is not compoundable.The petitioner further submitted that apart from being punished for whatever the offence the juvenile has committed, further punishment of imprisonment upto 3 years can be imposed on the guardian. The petitioner argued that this is an additional punishment for the same offence and violates the principle against double jeopardy provided Article 20(2) of the Constitution.The petitioner further submitted that an adult prosecuted under this provision is prevented from properly adducing evidence in the case. Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act prevents joint trial of a child along with an adult. Therefore, the child is not a party to the proceedings where the guilt of the act committed him is decided. Further, the petitioner argued that the juvenile cannot be examined as a witness as it would be hit by the protection against self-incrimination provided under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.The petitioner further argued that the cancellation of registration of the vehicle in question violates the constitutional right to property of the owner of the vehicle and violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution and Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.The petitioner also argued that the penalty of denying license to the minor till he attains 25 years of age violates Article 14,15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that it affects the persons freedom to move freely throughout the country given under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and is disproportional to be considered as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the juvenile is automatically denied from applying for any public employment which requires a driving license until he is of 25 years. The petitioner argued that this denial of equal opportunity and violation of Article 15(3) of the Constitution.The petition is moved by Advocates Tharreq Anver K., M. Devesh, Arun Chand, K. Salma Jennath, Rassal Janardhanan A., Govind G. NairCase Title: Limina v Sub Inspector and OthersCase No: OP (Crl.) 783 of 2024

Provision Penalising Guardian Of Minor Who Commits Offence Under Motor Vehicle Act Challenged In Kerala High Court

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags