Factual Background 

In the case of Anoop KA & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. the State Government and the State Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure strict implementation of the directives in the judgement in Anoop KA and another v. State of Kerala and others, which was the result of a contempt of court case brought by the President and Secretary of the All Kerala Truck Owners Association, respectively, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Indian Constitution. 

To assess any additional issues that might come up as well as to safeguard the safety of the most vulnerable road users, such as walkers, cyclists, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, the court had decided to keep the case open. When the case came up for consideration, the Court ordered that actions be taken against goods vehicles carrying overload, without a valid fitness certificate, and goods vehicles involved in a pattern of carrying overload offences in accordance with the law to suspend or cancel the certificate of registration or permit.

Court observation 

Anil K. Narendran, the sole judge of the Kerala High Court, recently ruled that vehicles with multicoloured LED, laser, neon, or flashlights cannot be considered to be compliant with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (MV) laws to issue a certificate of fitness. He pointed out that such cars could endanger the lives of other drivers, pedestrians, and other road users.

The court ruled that vehicles equipped with aftermarket multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, and flashlights, as seen in the screenshots previously reproduced herein, which are being used in a public setting and openly disobeying the safety standards outlined in AIS008, and are capable of dazzling other road users, pedestrians, and drivers of oncoming vehicles, posing a potential threat to other road users’ safety, must be dealt with appropriately. To grant a certificate of fitness, such goods vehicles cannot be deemed as complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules issued thereunder. Therefore, the Court mandated that a supplementary punishment of 5,000 must be levied per alteration in a vehicle in addition to the criminal penalties under MV legislation.