Supreme Court Expresses Concern on Livelihood of Drivers if Prior Judgment Was Reversed in the LMV driving licence case

Supreme Court Expresses Concern on Livelihood of Drivers if Prior Judgment Was Reversed in the LMV driving licence case

Cites the judgment in the 2017 Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited case was flawed in the present context

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has urged the Government of India to consider if the matter related to the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving license could be resolved through amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The issue was whether a person holding a driving licence of an LMV was entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class’ having an unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that an interpretation given by the Court could impact the livelihood of numerous drivers. The Bench thus urged Attorney General R Venkataramani to consider bringing appropriate legislative amendments to strike a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns.

The Court cited the judgment in the Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663 case, wherein a three-Judge Bench of Justice Amitava Roy, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that a separate endorsement in the LMV driving licence was not required to drive a transport vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kgs. Thus, he was entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class.’

In 2022, the dictum in the case was doubted by a co-ordinate Bench, and the matter was referred to a five-Judge Bench.

In the present matter, the AG stated that the application of the ratio in the Mukul Dewangan case enabled a person holding a license of LMV to drive a transport vehicle without a separate licence. Therefore, the interpretation was not in tune with legislative intent.

At this, Justice Roy raised the issue of 'livelihood' stating that it had to be considered while framing any rules or regulations. Chief Justice Chandrachud added, "They will be completely put out of their livelihood. This is not just a question of interpreting the law but also the social impact of the law. You may have to balance road safety on the one hand with the social purpose of the law. We cannot decide issues of social policy in the Constitution Bench."

He further said that the decision in the Mukul Dewangan case held the field for over six years. Any change in the position would have a serious impact on many. The Government could also take a call on the actual impact of the law. However, even if the consequences did not pose any danger to road safety and protected the right to livelihood of people, the Court did not have that option open to it.

While discussing the impact of policies on the rapidly evolving transportation, the Chief Justice remarked, "You may have autonomous vehicles coming up. They are already being experimented upon in other countries. India is not going to fall far behind."

Meanwhile Justice Roy reflected on the future scenario when there would not be any drivers and licenses wouldn’t be required.

The Chief Justice also held that the government may need to look at how licensees in the country could comply with the ‘strict dichotomy’ that the insurance companies have urged.

"The case does not raise a constitutional issue. It raises a statutory issue, combined with social policy issues. The government may settle for a less-than-legal solution only to protect people's livelihood, which it does all the time. The easiest way for us is to interpret the law and then conclude that the Mukul Dewangan case was wrongly decided. But it is not so simple because we are worried about the impact,” he said.

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the officials also agreed that the policy of the government needed a relook.

The Chief Justice then commented, "The sector is evolving so much. There are crisscrossed highways. The position that existed when the law was obtained is radically different now.”

While appearing for an insurance company, Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan urged the Court to decide the issue, without waiting for any concession by the Central government. He suggested the Court could issue appropriate directions to protect those who enjoyed the benefit of the Mukul Dewangan decision. Still, it must decide the reference and settle the interpretation of the law.

Thereafter, the Court felt it necessary for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to have a fresh look at the matter. The reasons provided included:

1. Since the enactment of the MV Act in 1988, there has been a rapid evolution of the transport sector, particularly with the emergence of new infrastructure and arrangements in the commercial sector.

2. Interpretation of the law must consider valid concerns of road safety.

3. The impact of the reversal of the Mukul Dewangan case decision on the social sector merited consideration by the executive.

4. A change in the position of law would impact persons who have insurance and may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV license. Their livelihood would be disturbed.

The Court stated, “These raise important policy issues that must be assessed and evaluated. Whether a change in law is warranted must be assessed by the government. The issue of interpretation referred to the Constitution Bench should await the careful evaluation of policy considerations.”

The Bench requested the government to carry out the exercise within two months.