Case at a Glance
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 21 writ petitions by schools and educational institutions, including nursing and pharmacy institutes, challenging Clause (xi) of Rule 73-A(1)A of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, which says vehicles providing transportation to schools “will not be more than 15 years old”. The Court held the State had power to frame the rule under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that it does not intrude on the Centre’s power under Section 59 to fix the overall life of a vehicle. It also ruled that the condition applies to all educational institutions, not merely schools teaching up to 10+2. Financial hardship and roadworthiness arguments were rejected because “the safety of the students is paramount.”
On 9 April 2018 a school bus met with an accident near Nurpur in District Kangra, killing 27 people, including 23 schoolchildren. The next day the High Court took up news reports as a public interest litigation (CWP No. 73 of 2018), and the State constituted a High Level Committee. Draft school transport safety guidelines were published on 17 April 2018, and on 5 May 2018 the Committee recommended a 15-year lifespan limit for school vehicles. By a notification of 12 October 2018, Rule 73-A was inserted in the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999; Clause (xi) of Rule 73-A(1)A provides that vehicles providing transportation to schools “will not be more than 15 years old.”
The petitioners — schools and other educational institutions, including nursing and pharmacy institutes, led by the Shivalik Institute of Nursing through its President Shri Khushi Ram Thakur — challenged the clause. They argued that Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act reserves the fixing of a vehicle’s age to the Central Government, that Section 96 gives the State no express power to fix vehicle age, that the restriction is arbitrary because it ignores roadworthiness and economic viability, and that “School” cannot cover non-school institutions. The State, represented by the Advocate General, defended the rule as a student-safety measure suited to the hilly terrain, consistent with rules in Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, and pointed to its 7 February 2024 notification requiring its own vehicles to be auctioned and scrapped after 15 years or on condemnation, whichever is earlier.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a State, through its Motor Vehicles Rules, bar educational institutions from using vehicles older than 15 years for student transport, and does that bar extend to colleges such as nursing and pharmacy institutes?
Section 59 versus Section 96: life of a vehicle versus conditions of its use
The Court drew a distinction between the overall legal life of a motor vehicle and the conditions on which it may be used for a particular purpose. Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 concerns the life of a vehicle, which is the Centre’s domain, and the Court accepted that “The State Government has no right to tinker or supplant the same by framing a rule contrary thereto.” But Clause (xi) does not declare a 15-year-old vehicle dead in law; it only restricts its use for school transport. Section 96 permits the State to make rules on matters connected with permits under Section 76, so the clause fell within the State’s rule-making power. The Court relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 03 SC CK 0068 on the presumption of validity of subordinate legislation and considered Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (2024) 02 SC CK 0009, cited by the petitioners.
On arbitrariness, the Bench held that financial hardship to institutions could not outweigh safety, and that roadworthiness alone is not a sufficient test. In its words, “The life of the young generation is far more precious than the monetary considerations of the petitioners.” On the scope of the rule, the Court held that Clause (xi) applies to every institution bound by the other general conditions in Rule 73-A(1)A, not only schools imparting education up to 10+2, and that the rule “cannot be read in a restrictive manner.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Clause (xi) of Rule 73-A(1)A of the HP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 — barring vehicles more than 15 years old from student transport — is within the State’s power under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The clause does not usurp the Central Government’s power under Section 59, which governs the overall life of a vehicle; it only regulates use for school transport.
- Economic hardship and roadworthiness of older vehicles do not make the rule arbitrary; the safety of students is paramount.
- The rule applies to all educational institutions covered by Rule 73-A(1)A, including nursing and pharmacy institutes; all 21 petitions were dismissed, interim orders vacated, with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles, for Himachal Pradesh, that colleges and professional institutes cannot run buses older than 15 years for students merely because they are not ‘schools’.
- The reasoning separating a vehicle’s legal life (Section 59) from conditions of use (Section 96) will be useful wherever State transport rules are challenged.
- It traces a direct line from the 2018 Nurpur tragedy to an enforceable safety rule, and refuses to dilute it for cost reasons.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Parents and Students
- Institutions in Himachal Pradesh cannot use vehicles more than 15 years old for student transport.
- The rule covers colleges, including nursing and pharmacy institutes, not just schools up to Class 12.
- Complaints about over-age vehicles can be raised with the transport authorities under Rule 73-A.
For Counsel
- Distinguish rules fixing a vehicle’s overall life (Section 59) from rules regulating its use under permit conditions (Section 96).
- Arguments of financial hardship carry little weight against safety-based subordinate legislation.
- Read Rule 73-A(1)A as a whole: its general conditions define which institutions are covered.
Key Takeaways
- Himachal Pradesh’s 15-year age cap for school vehicles has been upheld.
- The State has rule-making power under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to impose it.
- Roadworthiness of an old vehicle is not, by itself, a ground to escape the cap.
- All educational institutions bound by Rule 73-A(1)A, including nursing and pharmacy colleges, must comply.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this rule cancel the registration of vehicles older than 15 years?
No. The Court explained that the overall life of a vehicle is a matter for the Centre under Section 59. Clause (xi) only bars such vehicles from being used to transport students.
Does the rule apply to colleges or only schools?
The Court held it applies to all educational institutions bound by the general conditions in Rule 73-A(1)A, including nursing and pharmacy institutes, and is not limited to schools teaching up to 10+2.
Why was the rule introduced?
It followed the 9 April 2018 school bus accident near Nurpur, District Kangra, in which 27 people, including 23 children, died. A High Level Committee recommended a 15-year limit on 5 May 2018, and Rule 73-A was notified on 12 October 2018.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has treated student safety as the controlling consideration and refused to read the 15-year rule narrowly. Institutions that argued their older buses were roadworthy or that replacement was costly found no relief, and the ruling makes clear that the cap reaches every educational institution covered by Rule 73-A(1)A.
Practical takeaway: Educational institutions in Himachal Pradesh should take vehicles over 15 years old out of student transport; challenges based on cost or roadworthiness are unlikely to succeed after this ruling.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com