All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 3-III Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

Practice Mode:
19.

A state passes a legislation making it mandatory for all persons riding two-wheelers within the state to wear helmets. This rule extends not only to the driver, but also to any passenger on a two- wheeler. A two-wheeler rider, A, challenges the legislation on the ground that it violates A's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India to move freely throughout the territory of India. Will the challenge succeed ?


Principle :

Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India provides that all citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Article 19(2) (5) of the Constitution of India provides that the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right under Article 19 (1) (d) in the interests of the general public.

A: Since the rule that makes helmets for two-wheeler riders does not exist in other states, it is arbitrary and unreasonably. As such, it violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) and must be struck down.
B: The safety of persons riding two-wheelers cannot be said to be in the interest of the 'general public'. Moreover, wearing a helmet affects the safety only of those riding the two-wheeler, and nobody else, including the other persons on the road. Hence, the rule that makes helmets compulsory will be struck down.
C: The rule that makes helmets compulsory is a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1)(d), and moreover, is in the interests of the general public. Therefore, the challenge will not succeed.
D: The rule that makes helmets compulsory, if struck down, would affect the right to carry on any occupation-trade, or business of the helmet manufacturers,and therefore, cannot be struck down.
E: The rule that makes helmets compulsory is a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1)(d), but it must be imposed by the Central Government for it to be valid. Hence, the rule will be struck down.

The answer is: C

<< Previous Question
Next Question >>

Explanation

The correct answer is C: The rule that makes helmets compulsory is a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1)(d), and moreover, is in the interests of the general public. Therefore, the challenge will not succeed.

Explanation:


Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India to all citizens. However, Article 19(2) (5) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the general public.

In this case, the state has passed a legislation making it mandatory for all persons riding two-wheelers to wear helmets, extending to both the driver and any passenger. The challenge is based on the argument that this rule violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d).

However, the key issue here is whether the rule constitutes a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public. The safety of persons riding two-wheelers can be considered a matter of public interest. Road safety is a valid concern, and wearing helmets can significantly reduce the risk of head injuries and fatalities in accidents involving two-wheelers. Therefore, the requirement to wear helmets can be seen as a reasonable restriction on the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, as it serves a legitimate public interest in ensuring road safety.

Option C correctly states that the rule is a reasonable restriction and is in the interests of the general public. Therefore, the challenge is unlikely to succeed.