Delhi High Court rejects plea challenging mandatory uniform, badges for auto and taxi drivers
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the provisions of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules and permit conditions which make it mandatory for the drivers of taxis and auto rickshaws to wear uniforms and badges [Chaalak Shakti & Ors v Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that specific powers have been given to the Central and State governments to lay down conditions subject to which permits can be given.
The bench made it clear that the argument that the power of prescribing uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis is per se arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution cannot be accepted.
“The purpose of prescribing a uniform is for identification. The fact that there are different shades available in the same colour and, therefore, this leads to vagueness and is manifestly arbitrary also cannot be accepted,” the Court said.
The Bench was dealing with a plea filed by an organisation of drivers, Chaalak Shakti challenging Rule 7 of DMV Rules, 1993 as well as permit conditions as notified in SO 415(E) issued on June 8, 1989 under section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Rule 7 of the DMV Rules prescribes that while on duty, driver of a public service vehicle, other than State Transports Undertaking, shall wear khaki uniforms with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it.
The permit conditions notified in 1989 stated that drivers of tourist vehicles shall wear white uniform in summers and blue or grey in winters.
It was argued that there was lack of clarity about the colour of the uniform, fabric, details of trimming and accessories and whether the uniform should be pant-shirts, safari suits or kurta-pajamas.
The petitioners also contended that forcing the drivers of autos and taxis to wear uniform amounted to an affront to the constitutional freedom under Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom to carry on trade or profession) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
After considering the case, the Bench said that “the competence of Central governments to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of State government to lay down rules for uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles in Delhi by exercising its powers under Section 28 of the DMV Rules cannot be questioned”.
The Court concluded that there is no reason to strike down the Rule or the permit condition and therefore, the petition was dismissed.
"The colour and the description of the uniform for the drivers of vehicles running within the State is prescribed under Rule 7 of the DMV Rules (Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules) and the colour and the uniform as specified in SO No 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act (Motor Vehicle Act) are specific and there is no ambiguity."
Advocates Aman Agarwal and Madhav Bhatia appeared for the petitioners.
Delhi government was represented by its Standing Counsel, Santosh Kumar Tripathi and advocates Arun Panwar, Pradyumn Rao, Mehak Rankawat and Karthik Sharma.
Senior Central Government Counsel TP Singh appeared for the Union of India