KSRTC Moves Supreme Court Challenging High Court Direction To Remove Ads From Buses

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved Supreme Court challenging Kerala's High Court direction to remove advertisements from buses. Kerala High Court division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar had ordered that transport vehicles owned or operated by KSRTC and KURTC shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements since they are likely to distract the attention of other drivers. Noting that even after the order was passed, KSRTC buses continued to paste advertisements on the body, the High Court had directed the Transport Commissioner and State Police Chief to take the necessary steps to ensure that no such vehicles are allowed in public places by KSRTC or KURTC.

Through the petition, the KSRTC has described itself as a corporation, which, despite running into huge losses with debt to the tune of Rs. 9,000 crores, runs its buses to solely provide transport services to the general public in the State, being the sole stage carrier which has permission for transport for the Sabarimala pilgrimage, for which approximately 500 buses are pooled. It states–

"70,000-1,00,000 lakh devotees are visiting Sabarimala temple on a daily basis owing to the auspicious time as it is the peak season and the Petitioner Corporation, being the only State owned Transport corporation is responsible for providing the essential bus services to the General public at large, which is currently being hampered owing to the operations of the order."

The petition submits that the suo-moto proceedings undertaken by the Kerala High Court were not placed before the Chief Justice and therefore violated set procedure. It adds that the KSRTC has been running its buses with all the requisite permissions and sanctions as mandated under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The petition adds that the advertisements in question help the financially distressed corporation to raise Rs. 1.5 crores on a monthly basis. It adds–

"Due to the operations of the impugned order, the petitioner corporation is unable to raise the funds, which is ultimately impacting the public at large who are dependent at the essential service of road Transport provided by the Petitioner Corporation herein."

While stating that the primary reason for passing the impugned order was that the advertisements caused distractions and were against public safety, the petition highlights that the High Court had not formed any Committee to substantiate the said findings. As per the petition, the absence of any such report or findings by any committee, establishes that the High Court had erred in attributing it's own findings to a matter which pertains to public safety and policy, without any supporting and authentic supporting material.

Further, the petition also underlines that the observations in the Order are arbitrary in nature as the operations of the order, which prohibits the running of buses for the reasons of being "wrapped with advertisements", are applicable only on State owned transportation and not private carrier services. The petition submits–

"The Hon'ble High court ought to have considered the fact that the Petitioner Corporation owns only 26% of the stage carriage transport operation in the state whereas 74% of public transport system is manned by private stage carriage operator among those private stage carriage operators, there are also fleet owners who are managing several buses, thus, grave prejudice shall be caused to the general public of the state if the operations of the impugned Order are not stayed."