Supreme Court Declares ‘Jugaad’ a Motor Vehicle Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to a Rajasthan High Court judgment. The High Court had placed the entire liability for a vehicular accident on the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). The High Court had exempted the driver and owner of a ‘Jugaad’ from liability. The Supreme Court initially did not examine the compensation issue. However, the court decided to examine the legal status of ‘Jugaad’ vehicles. The main question was whether ‘Jugaads’ are motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The RSRTC argued that ‘Jugaads’ should be considered motor vehicles. If they are, then they must be insured and registered. Also, their drivers must have valid licenses. The Supreme Court then sought assistance from the Additional Solicitor General (ASG). The ASG was asked to get instructions from the Road Transport Ministry. The Ministry confirmed that ‘Jugaads’ are motor vehicles under the Act. They also stated that all states must enforce the Act’s provisions.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rajasthan High Court had ruled that the RSRTC was entirely liable for the accident. The High Court exempted the ‘Jugaad’ owner and driver. The RSRTC appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially focused on the compensation issue. However, it later decided to address the legal status of ‘Jugaads’. The court impleaded all State Transport Secretaries and Commissioners. This was to gather their views on the matter. Some states argued that ‘Jugaads’ were not vehicles under the Act. However, the majority agreed that they were.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question was Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This section defines “motor vehicle” as:

“Motor Vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty five cubic centimeters.”

The court also considered other sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These included Section 3 (necessity for driving license), Section 5 (responsibility of owners), Section 56 (certificate of fitness), Section 66 (permits for commercial vehicles), and Section 146 (insurance). These provisions outline the requirements for vehicles to be legally operated on roads.

Arguments

The RSRTC argued that ‘Jugaads’ are motor vehicles under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They contended that ‘Jugaads’ should be registered, insured, and driven by licensed drivers. The Central Government supported this view. They cited a circular stating that ‘Jugaads’ are vehicles under the Act.

Some State Governments argued that ‘Jugaads’ were not motor vehicles. They claimed that ‘Jugaads’ were primarily used for agricultural purposes. However, most states agreed that ‘Jugaads’ fell under the definition of motor vehicles. The State of Rajasthan decided to prohibit the plying of ‘Jugaads’ on roads. They made an exception for farmers using them for agricultural purposes.

The Rashtriya Kisan Morcha intervened, stating that a complete ban on ‘Jugaads’ would harm farmers. They argued that ‘Jugaads’ are an improved version of bullock carts. They requested that farmers be allowed to use them for agricultural purposes. Some lawyers argued that the court should not legislate. They suggested that the government should frame a policy. Other lawyers argued that the issue was about enforcing existing law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

• Whether ‘Jugaad’ is a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• If it is a motor vehicle, whether it is required to be insured and registered.
• Whether the driver of a ‘Jugaad’ must have a driving license.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that ‘Jugaad’ is a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court found that ‘Jugaads’ are mechanically propelled and adapted for use on roads. Therefore, they fall under the definition of a motor vehicle. The court also held that ‘Jugaads’ must be registered and insured. The drivers of ‘Jugaads’ must have valid driving licenses.

The court also clarified how the authorities were viewed:

M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 71*: This case was cited to support the broad interpretation of constitutional provisions.

State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 586*: This case was cited to explain the modern understanding of the separation of powers.

Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 333*: This case was cited to support the court’s power to issue directions to fill legislative gaps.

Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011*: This case was cited to support the court’s power to lay down guidelines in the absence of law.

Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889*: This case was cited to support the court’s power to issue directions to fill legislative void.

M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2158*: This case was cited to show the suggestions made by the court in the past, which were incorporated in the Act.

Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3428*: This case was cited to interpret the definition of “motor vehicle”.

Kishun Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors.*: The Allahabad High Court’s decision was followed, supporting the inclusion of ‘Jugaad’ under the definition of motor vehicles.

Avnish Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.*: The Allahabad High Court’s directions were followed.

Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 29.03.1995*: The directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court were followed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to enforce the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court emphasized that ‘Jugaads’ are mechanically propelled vehicles adapted for use on roads. The court also considered public safety. The court noted that ‘Jugaads’ are often involved in accidents. They are not insured, and their owners often cannot pay compensation. The court also considered the need to fill the legislative vacuum. The court sought to ensure that all vehicles on the road comply with safety standards.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The court rejected the argument that ‘Jugaads’ are not motor vehicles because they are primarily used for agricultural purposes. The court emphasized that the definition of motor vehicle is broad and includes vehicles adapted for use on roads, regardless of their primary purpose. The court also rejected the argument that it was legislating. The court clarified that it was merely enforcing the existing law.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• ‘Jugaads’ are mechanically propelled vehicles.
• ‘Jugaads’ are adapted for use on roads.
• Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines motor vehicles broadly.
• The Act aims to ensure public safety and regulate all vehicles on roads.

The Supreme Court quoted:

“Thus, any vehicle which is mechanically propelled and adapted for use upon roads and does not fall within the exceptions provided therein, is a Motor Vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act.”

“As such ‘Jugaads’ were being plied against the provisions of the Act and the rules framed under it, and in case any ‘Jugaad’ is found on the road and is seized by the police authorities, it could not be released in favour of its owner either by the law enforcing agency or even by the Magistrate.”

“The statutory authorities must ensure that `Jugaad’ can be plied only after meeting the requirements of the Act. The same has become a menace to public safety as they are causing a very large number of accidents.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment are:

• ‘Jugaads’ are now legally recognized as motor vehicles.
• ‘Jugaads’ must be registered with the appropriate authorities.
• ‘Jugaads’ must be insured.
• Drivers of ‘Jugaads’ must have a valid driving license.
• State authorities must enforce the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on ‘Jugaads’.
• Exemptions may be made for ‘Jugaads’ used exclusively for agricultural purposes, with specific regulations.

This judgment will have a significant impact on the use of ‘Jugaads’ in India. It will ensure greater safety on roads. It will also provide legal recourse for victims of accidents involving ‘Jugaads’.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the statutory authorities to enforce the law and restrain the plying of ‘Jugaads’. The court also clarified that authorities could make exemptions for ‘Jugaads’ used exclusively for agricultural purposes. However, these exemptions should have specific regulations to prevent commercial use.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a ‘Jugaad’ is a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This judgment clarifies the definition of a motor vehicle. It also ensures that all vehicles, including ‘Jugaads’, comply with the Act’s provisions. This decision does not overturn any previous legal positions. It reinforces the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that ‘Jugaads’ are motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This means they must be registered, insured, and driven by licensed drivers. The court’s decision aims to ensure public safety and compliance with the law. The judgment also allows for exemptions for ‘Jugaads’ used exclusively for agricultural purposes. This decision clarifies the legal status of ‘Jugaads’ and sets a precedent for their regulation.