Kerala High Court dismisses PIL challenging khaki uniform for transport dept staffers

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the amendment to Rule 406 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as ultra vires to Section 43 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and clause (xiv) of Schedule III of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.

Reliefs sought for in the petition are as under:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to and quash the same.

(ii) Declare that amendment to Rule 406 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as ultra vires Section 43 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and clause (xiv) of Schedule III of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.

Grounds urged in the petition are as follows:

A. Amendment to Rule 406 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is ultra vires of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and clause (xiv) of Schedule III of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.

B. The police officers discharge sovereign functions of the State, namely, enforcement of law and order. The uniforms of police officers therefore are required to be distinct, exclusive and easily identifiable. This requirement finds statutory imprimatur in Section 43 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The rigour of the said provision cannot be permitted to be diluted by permitting officers of any other department to wear uniforms deceptively similar to the uniforms of police officers.

C. The officers of the Motor Vehicles Department specified in Rule 406, namely, Regional Transport Officers/Joint Regional Transport Officers/Motor Vehicle Inspectors/Asst Motor Vehicle Inspectors hold posts in the Kerala State Transport Service’ which is a ‘State Service’ defined under Rule 7 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 an included in Schedule 1 of the said Rules. There are as many as sixty ‘State Services’ included in the list of Kerala State Services’ in Schedule I of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The “Kerala State Transport Service’ occupies Serial No: 28 of the said Schedule. The State Services’ included in Exhibit P8 schedule, including, the Kerala State Transport Service’ are not uniformed services’ of the State so as to come within the ambit of clause (xiv) of Schedule III of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007. This is for the reason that only those posts of the Kerala State Transport Service’ specified in Rule 406 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 406 have been prescribed with uniforms whereas posts over and above Regional Transport Officer, namely, Deputy Transport Commissioner, Senior Deputy Transport Commissioner, Joint Transport Commissioner, Additional Transport Commissioner and Transport Commissioner do not have any uniform prescribed.

D. The Kerala State Transport Service’ is not a ‘uniformed service’ and the officers of the said service, whether gazetted or not, will not come within the ambit of clause (xiv) of Schedule III of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.

E. The use of beret caps’ and badges embossed with the Emblem of India’ by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department cannot be permitted under Section 43 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 as it is deceptively similar to the uniform prescribed for senior police officers under the said provision.

F. The lapses on the part of the officers of the Motor Vehicle Department while undertaking inspection of vehicles are likely to show in poor light the law enforcement agencies of the State, particularly, the police department. In this context, it is submitted that unlike the officers of the Armed Forces, paramilitary forces and the police department the officers of the State Services, including the Kerala State Transport Service routinely engage in strikes, dharna, picketing and other modes of public demonstrations, which, coming when indulged in by persons wearing uniforms deceptively similar to the uniform of the police department and wearing caps and badges embossed with the State Emblem of India is per se an improper use India and therefore liable to be prohibited under the State Emblem of the State Emblem of India of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

G. It is of the essence of the uniforms and ranks and insignia prescribed for police and defense forces that it shall be distinct, exclusive and easily identifiable. The Indian Police Service (Uniform) Rules, 1954 made in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Al]. India Services Act, 1951 provides for detailed specification of uniforms to be worn by a member of the Service. For officers of the rank of DySP and above beret caps of blue colour are permitted to be worn as an alternative to the prescribed peak cap.

V. Tek Chand, Senior Government Pleader, submitted that amendment to Rule 406 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is not ultra vires to Section 43 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, and clause (xiv) of Schedule III of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman noted that Section 213(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions. Legislature also empowers the State Government to prescribe the uniform to be worn by them.

Though a contention has been made that the Regional Transport Officers/Joint Regional Transport Officers/Motor Vehicle Inspectors/Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors, hold posts in Kerala State Transport Service, which is a State Service, contention of the respondents that the above officers perform enforcement duties, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder is not disputed.

That apart, not only the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, who perform enforcement duties, in Motor Transport Service, falling within the State Service, officers in six other departments, who perform enforcement duties also wear Khaki uniform and other insignia, as prescribed by the concerned departments, the Bench held.

As per Schedule III to Rule 9 of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007, for other purposes for which Emblem may be used. Clause (xiv) reads as under:

“(xiv) Badges, collars, buttons, etc., with such modifications as are considered necessary, on the uniforms of-

(a) commissioned or gazetted officers of the armed forces of the Union;

(b) gazetted officers of uniformed services (other than armed forces) of the Unionand such of the State Governments and Union territory Administrations that have adopted the emblem, or have incorporated the emblem in the Emblem of that State or Union territory;

(c) authorised staff of Rashtrapati Bhawan and Indian Missions or Posts abroad;

In the light of the above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that persons, who hold posts in State Service, cannot wear Khaki uniforms, Stars / Emblems and other insignia, etc., cannot be countenanced, and not tenable.

As rightly contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit, these officers would fall under Schedule III, clause (xiv) to Rule 9 of the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007. The State Government has the power to frame rules under Section 213(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Legislative competence is shown , the Court observed.

“Giving due consideration to the rival submissions and statutory provisions, this Court is of the view that there is rationale and valid reasons for the amendment to Rule 406 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which cannot be said to be ultra vires to any conditions or statutory provisions, considered supra,” the order reads.