GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled on Wednesday, November 6 that individuals holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving licence can operate transport vehicles with an unladen weight under 7,500 kg, without requiring an additional endorsement. The ruling allows drivers with an LMV licence to drive certain transport vehicles, provided the gross weight does not exceed the 7,500 kg threshold. This judgement could positively impact the livelihoods of many drivers in the transport sector.
ALSO READ: STF Assam Conducts Raids In Ganeshpara, Seizes Over 6 Kilograms Of Ganja
"We hold that if transport vehicle weight is within 7,500 kgs, then a LMV license holder can also drive the same transport vehicle. A driver holding LMV license to drive vehicle under gross weight of 7,500 kgs can drive transport vehicles. There is no clear difference between LMV and transport vehicle," the Court said.
The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, clarified the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court reaffirmed its 2017 decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, asserting that LMV licence holders are eligible to drive transport vehicles within the specified weight limit. The Bench comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.
The judgement distinguishes licensing requirements based on vehicle weight, with additional eligibility criteria applicable only for vehicles over 7,500 kg, including medium and heavy goods and passenger vehicles. The Court noted that there was no data to support the claim that LMV licence holders cause significant road safety issues when driving light transport vehicles. Special requirements will continue for vehicles like e-carts, e-rickshaws, and those carrying hazardous goods.
This issue arose following the 2022 decision to refer the 2017 Mukund Dewangan judgement to a larger bench for review, prompting discussions on how licensing affects livelihoods. The Attorney General informed the Court that policy discussions are ongoing, but no agreement had been reached. Consequently, the Court decided the case based on the existing law.
