HC upholds migrant auto drivers’ right to earn
MORE often than not, the term “public welfare” is vague and misused by those in power to impose their own vested agenda which would lead to mass migration of non-Marathi speaking people from Mumbai. This would suit the agenda of those in power to make Mumbai a megalopolis of Marathispeaking people where non-Marathis would feel out-of-place. It is unclear whether the BJP government in Maharashtra will appeal against this judgment to the SC but even if it does, it is unlikely that the apex court will set aside the well-reasoned judgment of the HC.
Language may be the blood of the soul from which thoughts flow and words grow but it can be misused by the Maharashtra government to prevent millions of auto rickshaw drivers from earning their livelihood and to drive them out of the state. This is exactly what some sectarian political parties want and the BJP government may be pandering to these vested interests in the guise of public welfare. After all, the BJP has always had a love-hate alliance with the same saffron political outfits which have condemned this judgment.
This is why the Bombay high court nullified the Maharashtra government circular dated February 20, 2016 making knowledge of Marathi compulsory before issuing permits to auto rickshaw drivers. As per the circular, from November 1, 2016, new permits were to be issued only to those who spoke Marathi while those who already held permits would not be affected.
Those seeking permits to drive autos would have to pass a simple test such as reading 10 paragraphs in the Marathi language. This would imply that only those domiciled in Maharashtra would get these permits because only school drops outs from Maharashtra would be able to pass this test, driving out those from other states. This would make a mockery of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
But the Motor Vehicles Act is a central law made by Parliament and it was enacted to regulate motor vehicles and not to give auto permits only to Marathi-speaking people who comprise 71,936,894 or only 6.99% of Indian citizens. That would drive out all those who flock to Mumbai from Bihar, backward eastern UP, MP, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh or Tamil Nadu to earn their livelihood. This in turn would violate Article 19 (1) (e) of the Constitution which allows any citizen to reside and settle in any part of the country whether he knows the local language or not.
This is because India is a union of states and not a federation where the state governments have equal power as the central government. Not many may know it but whether one speaks Tamil, Oriya or Marathi at home, there is only just one nationality for all – Indian. This is stamped on your passport. Divisive factors such as domicile of a state, caste, region, religion or language should theoretically not be imposed by any state as conditions for granting auto permits or driving licenses. But several states do impose pre-conditions of domicile in their state for those seeking admissions to medical or engineering colleges.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016 does not have any provision which permits the states to impose their own language on those who seek permits to drive autos. In the present Motor Vehicles Act, there are 223 Sections out of which the Amendment Bill aims to amend 68 sections. The Bill substitutes Chapter 10 by Chapter 11 with new provisions to simplify third party insurance claims and the settlement process.
The important provisions include increase in compensation for hit-and-run cases from Rs. 25,000 to Rs.200,000 and payment of compensation upto Rs 10 lakh in road fatalities. The Bill also proposes insertion of 28 new sections with a focus on improving road safety, automation and computerisation and enabling online services for commuters.
Before delivering its judgment, the high court listens to arguments both for and against an issue. A writ petition or a PIL, which is a species of a writ petition, always makes the state a compulsory party, represented by a government pleader or in matters of grave public importance, by the advocate general of Maharashtra who has the right to address the court before other senior advocates.
Hence, the high court rightly ruled that the circular which operated with retrospective effect from November 1, 2016 was inoperable only to that extent after ruling on a clutch of petitions filed by auto rickshaw unions from Mumbai, Thane, Mira-Bhayandar and Bhiwandi, representing millions of drivers whose right to livelihood was affected. Mumbai alone has more than 200,000 auto rickshaw drivers, most of them migrants from Bihar or Uttar Pradesh who are semi-literates with no knowledge of Marathi.
In its judgment, the high court stated that the rules imposed other conditions such as making it compulsory for the drivers to accept any commuter and if there was any grievance redressal system for passengers to file complaints against errant auto drivers such as a WhatsApp number or mobile application for people to file complaints.
Defending its circular, the government said it was only demanding a basic knowledge of Marathi or studied up to Class 8. But the task before a writ court is to balance conflicting rights such as the right to livelihood of citizens versus the right of the state to curtail those rights in public welfare.
More often than not, the term “public welfare” is vague and misused by those in power to impose their own vested agenda which would lead to mass migration of non-Marathi speaking people from Mumbai. This would suit the agenda of those in power to make Mumbai a megalopolis of Marathispeaking people where non-Marathis would feel outof-place. It is unclear whether the BJP government in Maharashtra will appeal against this judgment to the Supreme Court but even if it does, it is unlikely that the apex court will set aside the well-reasoned judgment of the high court.