Advocate moves Kerala HC challenging 'No Vehicle Wednesdays' in Lakshadweep
A legal challenge has been filed in the Kerala High Court against the Lakshadweep Administration's order designating every Wednesday as a "No Vehicle Day" across the Union Territory, a move intended to promote public health and reduce emissions. The petitioner, an advocate and resident of Kalpeni Island, argues that the blanket weekly ban, effective from February 25th and imposing a ₹500 fine for violations except for essential services and persons with disabilities, infringes upon fundamental rights including freedom of movement and personal liberty. The petition contends the order lacks a rational basis, hinders professional duties requiring travel, and could create significant logistical challenges for arriving passengers, including vulnerable groups, and disrupt the supply of essential goods.
A legal challenge has been filed in the Kerala High Court against the Lakshadweep Administration's order designating every Wednesday as a "No Vehicle Day" across the Union Territory, a move intended to promote public health and reduce emissions. The petitioner, an advocate and resident of Kalpeni Island, argues that the blanket weekly ban, effective from February 25th and imposing a ₹500 fine for violations except for essential services and persons with disabilities, infringes upon fundamental rights including freedom of movement and personal liberty. The petition contends the order lacks a rational basis, hinders professional duties requiring travel, and could create significant logistical challenges for arriving passengers, including vulnerable groups, and disrupt the supply of essential goods.
A legal challenge has been filed in the Kerala High Court against the Lakshadweep Administration's order designating every Wednesday as a "No Vehicle Day" across the Union Territory, a move intended to promote public health and reduce emissions. The petitioner, an advocate and resident of Kalpeni Island, argues that the blanket weekly ban, effective from February 25th and imposing a ₹500 fine for violations except for essential services and persons with disabilities, infringes upon fundamental rights including freedom of movement and personal liberty. The petition contends the order lacks a rational basis, hinders professional duties requiring travel, and could create significant logistical challenges for arriving passengers, including vulnerable groups, and disrupt the supply of essential goods.
An advocate practising in Lakshadweep and Ernakulam has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the Lakshadweep Administration's decision to declare every Wednesday as a "No Vehicle Day" across the Union Territory.
The petitioner, a resident of Kalpeni Island, has challenged the February 17 order issued by the District Collector. The order prohibits the plying of motor vehicles on all islands every Wednesday from February 25 onwards.
The directive exempts vehicles used by persons with disabilities and those deployed for security and emergency medical services. Violations attract a fine of ₹500.
The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order and declare it unconstitutional. The petitioner argues that the blanket weekly ban violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(g) and 21.
According to the administration, the measure is aimed at promoting public health by encouraging walking and cycling and reducing vehicular emissions.
However, the petition states that the state cannot compel citizens to adopt a particular mode of transport by prohibiting motor vehicles. It argues that the restriction amounts to an unjustified intrusion into personal liberty and freedom of movement and lacks a rational nexus to the stated objective.
The petitioner also contends that the ban interferes with his professional obligations, which require frequent travel between Kerala and Lakshadweep and among the islands.
The plea raises concerns about passengers arriving by ships and flights on Wednesdays, including patients, students, elderly persons and tourists, who may face hardship in reaching their destinations.
It further states that essential goods transported by sea could remain stranded at jetties due to the prohibition, disrupting supply chains.
The petitioner claims there is no empirical material to justify such a sweeping restriction and has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order. An interim stay has also been requested.
(With LiveLaw inputs)