Bombay High Court Upholds Sikh Turban Exemption From Helmet Rule, Dismisses Article 14 Challenge

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a public interest challenge to the exemption granted to Sikh riders from the mandatory helmet requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the provision does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equality and is based on a valid and reasonable classification.

A Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta rejected a writ petition filed by Nagpur resident and student Kirtesh Vikas Chaudhari, who had questioned the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that exempting Sikhs wearing turbans from the helmet mandate amounted to arbitrary discrimination and offended Article 14 of the Constitution.

Appearing in person, Chaudhari contended that the law created an impermissible distinction by treating one community differently from others. According to him, equality before law requires that all citizens be subject to the same safety requirements, and the exemption effectively grants a special privilege to a particular class of persons.

The Union of India opposed the plea through Deputy Solicitor General of India Kartik Shukul, assisted by advocate Chirag Batra. The Centre argued that Article 14 permits reasonable classification and that the exemption contained in the statute has a rational basis connected to a distinct circumstance involving Sikh men who wear turbans.

Examining the challenge, the Court noted that Section 129 makes it compulsory for every person above four years of age driving or riding a motorcycle in a public place to wear protective headgear conforming to prescribed standards. However, the first proviso exempts a Sikh person wearing a turban while driving or riding a motorcycle.

The Bench observed that the exemption carved out in favour of Sikhs wearing turbans cannot be viewed as undermining the main provision. It clarified that the exception is contained in the proviso and addresses a specific situation linked to the wearing of a turban. The Court further observed that Sikh men are generally known to wear turbans and that the legislative choice cannot automatically be treated as unconstitutional discrimination.

Rejecting the Article 14 challenge, the Bench reiterated that the Constitution prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification. The judges explained that a valid classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and must bear a rational connection with the object sought to be achieved by the law. The Court found that the exemption satisfies these constitutional requirements.

The judgment also stressed that the exemption is not based merely on caste, creed or religion. Referring to the broader objective behind helmet regulations, the Court noted the increasing number of two-wheeler accidents and fatalities caused by head injuries. It observed that helmet requirements are intended to protect lives and promote public safety, while the limited exemption for Sikhs wearing turbans does not render the statutory framework unconstitutional.

The Court referred to the Bombay High Court at Goa, which had examined a similar challenge and held that the exemption for Sikhs cannot be viewed as an unreasonable preference. According to the Bench, courts have consistently recognised that legislative classifications are permissible when supported by a legitimate objective and a rational basis. The judges noted that judicial review does not permit striking down a statutory provision merely because a different policy choice may also be possible.

The Bench relied on earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts that had upheld helmet laws and recognised the scope of reasonable classification. Quoting the Delhi High Court, it observed that “Article 14 does not forbid a reasonable classification” and that legislatures are entitled to recognise different religious practices where constitutionally permissible.

Holding that the issue is no longer open to debate, the Court said, “Section 129 of the MV Act cannot be said to be violative of any of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.” Finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the case.

Case Title: Kirtesh v. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Date of Judgment: June 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta