Introduction:
In Mahesh Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 29530/2025), a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi addressed a public interest litigation filed by social activist and former corporator Mahesh Garg. Garg challenged widespread violations by private vehicle owners—use of unauthorized sirens/hooters, red/yellow/blue flash lights, VIP stickers, distorted or non‑standard number plates—claimed to be in clear breach of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a March 1, 2025 circular issued by the Bhopal Police Headquarters. The petition called for immediate enforcement and continuous monitoring to protect public safety and uphold constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
Petitioner Advocate Manish Yadav submitted that despite the circular instructing a 15‑day statewide campaign from March 1 targeting such violations, police enforcement in Indore and other districts had been ineffectual and sporadic. Garg argued such modifications embolden traffic indiscipline, endanger lives, and degrade public confidence by simulating privileges reserved for legitimate officials. VIP stickers falsely convey entitlement, while illegal sirens and flash lights encourage misuse and unsafe driving. He asserted that authorities failed to act despite written representations sent to the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic). The petitioner contended that administrative inertia violated citizens’ right to safety, lawful governance, and equal treatment under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He urged the court to direct sustained enforcement and periodic public disclosure of compliance reports.
Arguments of the Respondents (State & Authorities):
Though detailed state arguments are not public, the authorities likely contended that directives had been issued and that steps were underway, pointing to police campaigns and legal mechanisms. They may have emphasized administrative challenges, jurisdictional constraints, or resource limitations affecting enforcement across regions. They likely argued compliance was underway following the March 1 circular directing district superintendents and commissioners to enforce Motor Vehicles Act (including impoundment, fines, and seizure).
Court’s Analysis & Judgment:
Acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns and noting visible non‑compliance, the bench directed immediate and robust action. It ordered the Regional Transport Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) to crack down on vehicles violating the March 1 circular and relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—specifically targeting unauthorized sirens/hooters, flash lights, VIP stickers, and irregular number plates.
The court granted a one‑week compliance window, requiring private vehicle owners to remove illegal accessories and correct number plates in accordance with MV Act specifications (font, size, colour) and to remove extra plates except for government or police vehicles. A notice was issued to the State, and the matter was scheduled for further hearing after four weeks.
The court endorsed the public interest nature of the petition, highlighting that rampant violations compromise safety and public trust, and that inadequate enforcement amounted to administrative neglect. It emphasized that VIP symbols and illicit vehicle modifications cannot be tolerated in a rule‑based democratic order.
Legal & Social Implications:
This decision reinforces statutory mandates of the Motor Vehicles Act as non‑derogable. It affirms the judiciary’s willingness to enforce not just legislative norms but also circular instructions aimed at curbing misuse. The ruling underscores that vehicle modifications cannot be used to simulate state authority or undermine public safety. It highlights accountability gaps within police administration and commands proactive enforcement. It also reinforces citizens’ constitutional rights to safety, equal treatment under law, and dignified public order.