When new government orders or directives are issued concerning existing laws, it is the primary responsibility of the government and its officials to ensure that they do not conflict with current legislation or court rulings. Otherwise, such directives may be legally challenged and face backlash in courts. At times, hasty decisions made without foresight or assessing consequences can even attract harsh criticism from the judiciary. The Kerala High Court recently struck down certain directives from a circular issued by the Transport Commissioner one and a half years ago, related to driving test reforms in the state, after finding them to be in violation of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Would this embarrassment have occurred if the authorities had carefully examined existing laws before issuing the directives?

One of the instructions quashed by the High Court was that only two-wheelers with foot-operated gear shifts and engine capacity above 95cc could be used for driving tests. Additionally, the court also nullified the directive that automatic transmission vehicles and electric vehicles (EVs) should not be used for light motor vehicle driving tests. These decisions were made by a bench led by Justice N. Nagaresh, in response to petitions filed by driving school owners and driving license applicants challenging the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner on February 21, 2024. The High Court also overturned the condition that two-wheelers older than 18 years should not be used for driving tests. Motor vehicle law falls under the jurisdiction of the central government, so the state government should have exercised greater caution when issuing related guidelines.

Today, most cars from the new generation come with automatic transmissions, or at least offer automatic variants. Given their ease of use and convenience, a growing number of people prefer automatic cars. Especially in busy traffic or on hilly roads, driving manual cars can be stressful for many—particularly women. As a result, when buying new cars, many women in families prefer automatic models. Similarly, the directive not to use electric vehicles for driving tests is also outdated and illogical. Electricity is quickly becoming the fuel of the future, replacing petrol and diesel. Their numbers on the roads are rising daily. So, introducing such regressive reforms without considering this shift — and having them ruled as illegal — only adds to the embarrassment.

At the same time, the High Court upheld directives aimed at improving the quality and precision of driving tests. For example, the court did not interfere with the instruction that driving test instructors should ideally have technical education qualifications. Although this issue comes under central regulations, the court chose not to invalidate it since it was not enforced as a mandatory requirement. In short, the High Court only struck down those parts of the Transport Commissioner’s directives that contradicted central motor vehicle rules, while approving the rest. Reforms implemented by officials without understanding the limits of their authority ultimately bring disrepute to the government. Going forward, any such reforms must at least reflect the basic prudence of ensuring they do not violate central rules or existing court orders.