The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea challenging the provisions of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules and permit conditions that mandate the wearing of uniforms and badges by taxi and auto-rickshaw drivers.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, noted that both the Central and State governments possess specific powers to establish conditions for granting permits.
The court firmly rejected the argument that the requirement for drivers to wear uniforms is inherently arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the purpose of the uniform is for identification, and the availability of different shades within the same color does not render it vague or arbitrary.
The case was brought before the court by Chaalak Shakti, an organization representing drivers, challenging Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules of 1993 and the permit conditions notified in 1989 under section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rule 7 mandates that drivers of public service vehicles (excluding State Transports Undertakings) wear khaki uniforms with a Hindi nameplate while on duty. The 1989 permit conditions stipulate that drivers of tourist vehicles should wear white uniforms in summer and blue or grey uniforms in winter.
The petitioners argued that there was ambiguity regarding the color, fabric, trimmings, accessories, and the prescribed attire, such as pant-shirts, safari suits, or kurta-pajamas.
They further contended that imposing uniforms on auto-rickshaw and taxi drivers infringed upon their constitutional freedoms under Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom to carry on trade or profession), and 21 (right to life).
After careful consideration, the bench concluded that the competence of the Central government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of the State government to establish uniform rules for transport vehicle drivers in Delhi under Section 28 of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be questioned.
Therefore, the court found no grounds to strike down the rule or the permit condition, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. The court reiterated that the uniform’s color and description for drivers operating within the state are precisely prescribed under Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules and the specific uniform outlined in SO No 415 E dated 08.06.1989, issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, leaving no room for ambiguity.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Aman Agarwal and Madhav Bhatia, while the Delhi government’s interests were presented by Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi and advocates Arun Panwar, Pradyumn Rao, Mehak Rankawat, and Karthik Sharma. Senior Central Government Counsel TP Singh appeared on behalf of the Union of India.
