July 4 order observed the petitioners were unable to make out a case how Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicles (DMV) Rules, 1993, is “manifestly arbitrary”. The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the mandatory uniform for autorickshaw and taxi drivers in the city, saying the purpose of prescribing a uniform is for their identification. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad in its July 4 order observed the petitioners were unable to make out a case how Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicles (DMV) Rules, 1993, is “manifestly arbitrary”. The bench said, “Only by stating that there can be several shades of khaki or that it does not state whether it should be a pant-shirt or kurta-pyjama or the nature/details of stitching etc, does not make the provisions vague. Rule 7 of the DMV Rules only prescribes that a driver shall wear a khaki uniform with a nameplate”. “Similarly, SO No 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act prescribes for the colour of a uniform for a driver of tourist vehicle for summer and winter months,” it said. “The contention of the petitioners that there is no requirement of a uniform and the prescription of uniform is vague or arbitrary and is violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted,” the bench said dismissing the plea. The plea moved by Chaalak Shakti, a drivers’ union, and two other petitioners said there is complete ambiguity about the colour of uniform to be worn by autorickshaw drivers on duty as Rule 7 of DMV Rules, 1993, prescribes khaki but the permit conditions laid down by the state authorities mandate grey or blue. It had further contended that there are dozens of prominent shades of both khaki and grey, and since no particular shade had been stipulated, the enforcement authorities enjoyed a huge discretion about who they wanted to prosecute. It also contended that the as per SO No 415 E permit conditions were issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein it is prescribed that drivers of tourist vehicles shall wear white uniform in summer and blue or grey uniform in winter. The bench, however, observed that the purpose of prescribing a uniform is for “identification”, and the fact that there are different shades available in the same colour and, therefore, this leads to vagueness and is “manifestly arbitrary” can’t be accepted. “The colour and the description of the uniform for the drivers of vehicles running within the State is prescribed under Rule 7 of the DMV Rules and the colour and the uniform as specified in SO No 415 E dated 08.06.1989 which has been issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act are specific and there is no ambiguity,” the bench said. The petitioners had contended that Rule 7 of the DMV Act and the 1989 advisory (SO) was “manifestly arbitrary”. Observing the test laid down by the Supreme Court, the HC said the challenge to Rule 7 under DMV Rules or the permit conditions issued under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “does not meet with the test as laid down” by the top court. “The Central Government has the power to make rules under Section 88 of the MV Act and the State Government has the power to make rules under Section 28 of the MV Act,” it added.