Talking on mobile phone while driving is not illegal: Kerala High Court

Must Read

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Follow us

Kerala High Court on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, ruled in favour of the petitioner stating that talking on mobile phone while driving is not illegal under Kerala Police Act, Section 118(e). If such a behaviour needs to be condemned then such statutory provisions should be enacted by the Kerala Legislative Assembly so that in future punitive measures could be implemented against such actions.

Facts of the case

On April 26, 2017, MJ Santhosh, a native of Kakkanad in Ernakulam, Kerala was arrested by the police for talking on mobile phone while driving in his car. The police booked him on dangerous driving charges and for endangering public safety. He was charged under Section 118(e) of Kerala Police Act (knowingly does any act which causes danger to public or failure in public safety) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (driving a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public).

A single bench judge found MJ Santhosh to be a reckless driver and agreed with the prosecution that by displaying such reckless and dangerous driving the accused had attracted the provisions of Section 118(e) and is liable to be punished for such offences with imprisonment up to three years or with fine up to Rs. 10,000 or with both. But MJ Santhosh filed a petition with Kerala High Court through his advocate George Joseph Pulimoottil.

Court ruling

Advocate George Pulimoottil while presenting his case on behalf of the petitioner in front of two judges Division Bench comprising of Justices AM Shafique and P Somarajan of Kerala High Court pointed out the errors in the single judge’s verdict. He brought into Court’s notice a 2012 judgment by Justice SS Satheesachandran in a similar case (Abdul Latheef vs. State of Kerala) where it was held invoking Section 118(e) for unscrupulous and reckless drivers for using mobile phones while driving will not constitute an offence. Such drivers are liable to be punished under Section 184 Motor Vehicles Act for dangerous driving, the offence punishable with imprisonment up to six months or with fine up to Rs. 1,000.

The judges went over both the verdicts, the recent one, in this case, contradicting with the 2012 judgment to give their opinion in this case. The Court concurred with the 2012 verdict while ruling in favour of the petitioner stating that “the court can’t rule that the person who speaks on a mobile phone while driving causes danger to the public. There is no provision in the Police Act that bans people from talking over mobile phone while driving. Hence a person doing this can’t be assumed as one causes danger to the public. The assembly should pass an amendment to include these provisions in the Police Act to make it an offence.” The Kerala High Court further observed that anyone who has been charged under Section 118(e) has the right to seek remedy in such cases and “those concerned can approach the respective magistrate courts to quash their cases.”

Impact of the judgment

The judgment in this case could be considered a regressive one especially in the light of Rajasthan High Court’s April 24 verdict where the Court directed the state government to cancel licences of those caught talking on their mobile phones while driving. But Kerala High Court’s verdict has provided sufficient ammunition to dangerous drivers who would now be more inclined to break the law and pose more hazards on roads and a danger to public safety. A loophole in the legislation that usage of mobile phones while driving was not banned in either of the laws, the Acts being enacted prior to mobile usage becoming so popular cannot be construed as permission for reckless driving and utter disregard for public safety.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -