Case Title: M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. RAMBHA DEVI & ORS.
Summary
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has recommended that the Union Government investigate the possibility of resolving the Light Motor Vehicle Driving License issue through policy changes and amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra, observed that the Court’s interpretation could affect the livelihood of a large number of chauffeurs. The bench encouraged the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, to contemplate the implementation of suitable legislative amendments to achieve a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns. The bench also emphasized the importance of considering the social consequences of the law and the impact on individuals, as the Mukul Dewangan decision had dominated the field for over six years.
The Union Government is responsible for determining whether a change in the law is necessary, and the Supreme Court has decided to postpone the interpretation issue referred to the Constitution Bench until the government has conducted a thorough assessment of the policy considerations that must be taken into account when determining whether a reversal of law is necessary. The case involves the influence of policies on the rapidly changing field of transportation, with the Chief Justice of India stating that autonomous vehicles may be on the horizon and that licenses may not be necessary in the future. The Union Government is also considering the number of licensees who can adhere to the “strict dichotomy” advocated by insurance companies, as well as the social impact of any change in the legal position. The court has requested the government to complete this exercise within the next two months, considering the profound implications that could result from the reversal of the judgment in Mukul Dewangan.
About the case
On Wednesday, a Supreme Court Constitution Bench recommended that the Union Government investigate the possibility of resolving the Light Motor Vehicle Driving License issue through policy changes and amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, thereby postponing the hearing.
The Constitution Bench is currently deliberating whether an individual who possesses a driving license for a “light motor vehicle” is legally entitled to operate a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” with an unladen weight of no more than 7,500 kg.
The bench, which consisted of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra, observed that the Court’s interpretation could affect the livelihood of a large number of chauffeurs. Consequently, the bench encouraged the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, to contemplate the implementation of suitable legislative amendments to achieve a balance between the livelihood issue and road safety concerns.
Not an interpretative exercise to be conducted by the court; rather, a statutory issue that is combined with social policy.
In the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, the question of whether an individual who possesses a driving license for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) could operate a transport vehicle with an unladen weight of no more than 7,500 kgs on the basis of that license was resolved. In this instance, a three-judge Bench, which included Justice Amitava Roy, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, determined that a distinct endorsement in the “Light Motor Vehicle” driving license was unnecessary for the operation of a transport vehicle with an unladen weight of less than 7500 kgs. Consequently, an individual who possessed an LMV driving license was permitted to operate a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” with an unladen weight that did not exceed 7,500 kgs. The dictum in Mukund Dewangan was questioned by a coordinate bench in 2022, and the matter was subsequently referred to a five-judge bench.
The AG stated during today’s hearings that the application of the ratio in Mukul Dewangan allowed an individual with an LMV license to operate a transport vehicle without a separate license. She also noted that this interpretation in Mukul Dewangan appears to be inconsistent with legislative intent.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy then addressed the issue of “livelihood” and emphasized that it must be considered when establishing any rules or regulations. The impact on individuals was also a factor to be taken into account, as CJI DY Chandrachud stated in the Mukul Dewangan judgment that there could be thousands of individuals across the country who are driving commercial vehicles.
“They will be entirely deprived of their source of income.” This is not solely a matter of interpreting the law; it also pertains to the social consequences of the law. It may be necessary to strike a balance between the social purpose of the law and road safety. We are unable to resolve social policy matters on the Constitution bench. “We must adhere to the law,” stated the Chief Justice of India.
The CJI also stated that the Mukul Dewangan decision had dominated the field for more than six years, and any alteration to the legal position would have a significant effect on numerous individuals. Additionally, he included—
“The government has the authority to determine the actual impact of the law on the ground over the past six years.” If the repercussions are such that they do not jeopardize road safety or the right to subsistence, or if you anticipate future modifications, include a provision requiring you to ensure that your license is in compliance within the next five years. You may possess a diverse array of alternatives that we, as a court, do not possess.
The bench also deliberated on the influence of policies on the swiftly changing field of transportation. The Chief Justice of India stated,
“Autonomous vehicles may be on the horizon.” They are currently being tested in other countries. India will not be significantly disadvantaged.
Justice Roy further stated that there may be a future in which there will be no drivers, and as a result, licenses will not be necessary.
The CJI also stated that the government may need to consider the number of licensees in the country who are able to adhere to the “strict dichotomy” that the insurance companies have advocated for, in addition to the social impact. “How many will you be left with, will you have that supply left in the country?” he inquired.
“This case does not present a constitutional issue.” It raises a statutory issue that is combined with social policy concerns. The government may opt for a solution that is not entirely legal in order to safeguard the livelihood of the populace. It is a frequent occurrence for the government. The most straightforward approach is to interpret the law and subsequently determine that Dewangan was incorrectly decided. However, the CJI emphasized that the situation is not as straightforward as it appears due to our concerns regarding the potential consequences.
The discussion was also attended by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who stated that the officials concurred that the government’s policy required a reevaluation.
“The industry is undergoing a significant transformation.” There are highways that intersect. The CJI stated that the situation that existed at the time the law was obtained is significantly different from it now.
However, Senior Advocate Jayant Bhushan, who was representing an insurance company, implored the Court to resolve the legal matter without anticipating any concessions from the Union Government. The counsel contended that the Constitution Bench is obligated to address the reference, irrespective of its potential consequences, as it has been tasked with addressing a legal matter. The counsel proposed that the Court could issue appropriate directives to safeguard those who had reaped the benefits of the Mukul Dewangan decision. However, the Court must resolve the reference and resolve the interpretation of the law.
Needed for the Union to conduct a fresh assessment of the situation
In the end, the court determined that it would be necessary for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to conduct a new assessment of the situation. The subsequent justifications were offered for this:
1. The transport sector has undergone a rapid evolution since the enactment of the MV Act in 1988, particularly in the commercial sector, as a result of the emergence of new infrastructure and arrangements.
2. Valid concerns regarding road safety must be considered in any interpretation of the law.
3. The executive should have taken into account the potential impacts on the social sector if the decision in Mukul Dewangan were to be reversed, as it has dominated the field for nearly six years.
4. The impact of any change in the legal position in Mukul Dewangan would be undeniable, particularly for individuals who possess insurance and may be operating commercial vehicles with an LMV license. Many individuals would be reliant on their livelihoods, which would be disrupted.
“All of them do raise significant policy concerns that necessitate the union government’s assessment and evaluation.” The Union Government is responsible for determining whether a change in the law is necessary. The court stated, “In light of these features, we are of the opinion that the interpretation issue that has been referred to the Constitution Bench should be postponed until the government has conducted a thorough assessment of the policy considerations that must be taken into account when determining whether a reversal of law is necessary.”
Consequently, the court determined that it was appropriate for the government to assess the entirety of the matter prior to the court’s commencement of the interpretative exercise of the law, in light of the profound implications that could result from the reversal of the judgment in Mukul Dewangan.
“The Constitution Bench may take up the proceedings based on additional material that is presented to the court once it is informed.” We kindly ask the government to complete this exercise within the next two months.
