Kerala High Court upholds mandatory installation of fatigue detection cameras in private buses

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the State Transport Authority's (STA) directives mandating police clearance certificates (PCCs), installation of cameras with driver-fatigue detection systems, and geo-fencing facilities in private buses [Kerala Taxi drivers Association v The State of Kerala & ors and connected cases]..Justice Mohammed Nias CP found that the measures introduced by the STA and the Transport commissioner's circular were valid regulatory steps taken in the public interest to enhance passenger safety and reduce accidents. Such steps were in no way violative of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), the Court ruled."In a State where there were 1017 numbers of accidents involving the stage carriages between 2023 to 2025 and more of them being reported almost every other day, measures introduced by the State to curb or reduce such incidents are not only in conformity with the Act and its Rules, but are also rooted in public interest. Such measures cannot be stultified on the strength of hyper-technical arguments. The impugned orders are lawful and perfectly in line with the Act and Rules. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed," the Court said..The new safety requirements were supposed to be rolled out with effect from April 1 this year. The decision was taken in an STA meeting held in January. However, various bus operators, tourist taxi associations, and educational institutions told the High Court that the new directives placed an unreasonable financial burden on them.They contended that the STA did not have the power to issue such directives and that they were not backed by the MV Act.According to them, only the State or the Central government could impose such measures by framing specific rules under the MV Act - not the STA through a resolution or the Transport Commissioner via a circular.The petitioners stated that under Section 72(2) of the MV Act, permit conditions can only be altered after giving at least one month's notice to permit holders. However, no such notice was served to any of the stakeholders, the Court was told. Further, they argued that licensing provisions under Sections 19 and 34 of the MV Act already governed driver conduct and disqualification. The introduction of a PCC requirement created an additional barrier that infringed the fundamental right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, they said. They also pointed out that PCCs were valid for only six months. The new requirement would force operators to repeatedly obtain certificates for all employees and could lead to staff shortages and higher costs, the petitioners argued. .The government defended its decision by stressing that the STA was fully empowered to frame policy measures in the interest of public safety.It argued that stricter controls had become necessary given the alarming rise in accidents involving private buses, many of which were attributed to rash driving, driver fatigue, and even incidents of harassment of students.It added that similar directions, including mandatory CCTV installation in buses, had already been upheld by the Kerala High Court. .The Court accepted the State's arguments, noting that under the MV Act, the authorities are empowered to introduce safety conditions in the interest of the public.Citing the Supreme Court's observations in Union of India and Another v Cynamide India Ltd & connected cases and Others, it noted that in regulatory decisions, it is the public and not the operators, who are the real stakeholders. Thus, when such a regulatory measure is introduced, no prior consultation with the operators/ permit holders was necessary, the Court said."The permit holders have no right of representation against regulatory measures/policy decisions issued in the public interest, as the stakeholders who are affected and interested in the measures under question are the public at large and the travelling public in particular," the judgment said..Additionally, the Court stated that verifying the drivers' criminal backgrounds through PCC could not be termed as arbitrary or discriminatory, as it was directly linked to public safety, especially when students were regular commuters in private buses..The Court emphasised that the STA had powers to issue conditions regarding stage carriages and other vehicles even in the absence of a specific rule framed by the State government.The Court added that the Transport Commissioner and Road Transport Authorities (RTA) were competent to issue circulars and notices reinforcing the STA's decisions..[Read Judgment]