During the hearing on Monday (November 10) a single bench of judges Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the respondents to file a reply to the writ petition and listed the matter on December 10.

The petitioner submitted that the guardian is not bound by any law to ensure that his ward does not violate the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. She claims that the Section assumes that the use of a motor vehicle by a minor is always with the consent of the guardian or owner of the vehicle. The petitioner argued that the guardian could be found guilty even if he did not aid or abet the commission of the crime.

The petition argues:

“Unless there is such a law, no guardian shall be liable to the penalty under Section 199A of the Act. Section 199A punishes the guardian even in cases where the minor was not aided or abetted by the guardian to commit an offence. The provision of the section requires an arbitrary presumption that the use of such motor vehicle by the minor was with the consent of such minor’s guardian or the owner of the motor vehicle.”

The petitioner contends that where no statute has imposed a responsibility on the guardian to ensure that his ward does not contravene the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, the guardian cannot be punished for such contravention and any such punishment would be contrary to Article 20( 1) of the Constitution.

Sections 180 and 181 punish the minor or adult without a valid driving license who drives a vehicle and the owner of a vehicle who allows such persons to drive their vehicle. According to these two provisions, the maximum prison sentence is 3 months. However, under Section 199A, a guardian or owner of the vehicle can be punished with 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner argued that even an adult who violates the provisions receives a much lesser punishment compared to the guardian who is punished only because of his relationship with the offending child. The petitioner also pointed out that when the offenses under Section 180 or 181 are compounded, the offense under Section 199A is not compounded.

The petitioner further submitted that in addition to being punished for any crime the minor has committed, the guardian can be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years. The petitioner argued that this is an additional punishment for the same offense and violates the principle of double punishment under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

The petitioner also argued that an adult prosecuted under this provision is prevented from properly presenting evidence in the case. Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act prevents a child from being tried alongside an adult. Therefore, the child is not a party in the process where the guilt for the committed act is decided. In addition, the petitioner argued that the minor could not be examined as a witness because he would be affected by the protection against self-incrimination provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The petitioner further argued that the cancellation of the registration of the motor vehicle in question violates the constitutional right of ownership of the vehicle owner and violates Article 300 A of the Constitution and Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also argued that the penalty of denying a minor’s license until he reaches the age of 25 violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that it affects the freedom of individuals to move freely throughout the country as provided for in Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and is disproportionate to be considered a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the minor is automatically prohibited from applying for any public employment that requires a driver’s license until the age of 25. The petitioner argued that this denial of equal opportunity and violation of Article 15(3) of the Constitution.

The petition is moved by Advocates Tharreq Anver K., M. Devesh, Arun Chand, K. Salma Jennath, Rassal Janardhanan A., Govind G. Nair

Case Title: Limina v Sub-Inspector and Others

Case no: OP (Crl.) 783 of 2024