Provision Punishing the Guardian of a Minor Child Who has committed an offense under the Motor Vehicles Act Challenged in the Kerala High Court

Single judge panel at the hearing on Monday, November 10 Judge Bechu Kurian Thomas asked the defendants to file an answer to the defense and listed the matter on 10 December.

The petitioner submitted that it is not required under any law for the guardian to ensure that his ward does not contravene the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He argues that the Division 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 can be held liable for the penalty under section 199A of the law. Article 199A provides for the punishment of the guardian even in cases where the minor is not aided or abetted by the guardian to commit an offence. The provision of the article requires an arbitrary presumption that the child’s use of this motor vehicle is with the consent of the child’s guardian or the owner of the motor vehicle.”

The petitioner submits that where no law imposes on the guardian the responsibility of checking that his guardianship does not contravene the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the guardian cannot be punished for such violation and such punishment would be contrary to Article 20(1). of the Constitution.

Articles 180 and 181 penalize a minor or adult who does not have a valid driver’s license to drive a vehicle and the owner of the vehicle to allow such person to drive his vehicle. Under both provisions, the maximum duration of imprisonment is 3 months. However, according to Article 199A, the guardian or owner of the vehicle can be punished with 3 years imprisonment. The petitioner argued that even an adult who violated the provisions was given a much lesser punishment than the guardian who was punished simply because of his association with the juvenile offender. The petitioner further submitted that when the offenses under Section 180 or 181 are compounded, the offense under Section 199A is also not compoundable.

The applicant also claimed that in addition to punishing the child regardless of the crime he committed, the guardian could be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 3 years. The applicant argued that this was an additional punishment for the same crime and violated the principle against double jeopardy enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Constitution.

Petitioner also alleged that an adult prosecuted under this provision was precluded from properly presenting evidence in the case. Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act prevents a child from being tried together with an adult. Therefore, the child is not a party to the trial in which it is decided that the child is guilty of the act he committed. Further, the petitioner argued that the child could not be examined as a witness as it would be affected by the protection against self-incrimination provided under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The applicant also claimed that the cancellation of the registration of the vehicle in question violated the vehicle owner’s constitutional right to property and Article 300 A of the Constitution and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The applicant also claimed that the penalty of not issuing a driver’s license until the minor turns 25 was contrary to Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Applicant argued that this affected the freedom of persons specified in Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution to move freely throughout the country and that it was disproportionate to be considered a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(5) of the Constitution. Additionally, the young person is automatically denied from applying for any public office requiring a driver’s license until he or she reaches the age of 25. The petitioner alleged that this equality of opportunity was denied and that Article 15(3) of the Constitution was violated.

Petition moved Lawyers 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 / 2024