Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
Dear Saswat

I agree with you. However, to say "I do no think the circular or the law can prevent you from using your own car to and from work. It would be a violation of the constitutional right to freedom and right to equality." may not be perfectly correct.

Here there is no violation of fundamental rights involved. Unless any of such provisions, which are laid down by Act or rightful competent authority, are struck down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

For example, the "odd and even" car rule in Delhi; does it violate anyone's fundamental right of having a duly lawfully registered vehicle and not being allowed to drive it on certain days, even if there is an emergency or disaster ?

Does barring a person without tickets, to travel in a train, infringes on his fundamental right ?

Or the policy of reservation, does it violate the Right to Equality of those who are not covered under it ??

My comments are only illustrative, and not meant to offend. or criticize.

Warm regards.

From India, Delhi
Raj, I do not get offended by discussion.
The odd-even rule, if it was challenged the right way would be struck down not for the restrictions it's self, but because of exemptions given to certain sections of the population. It would be stuck down not on right to freedom but on right to equality.
However, in the particular case, the restriction would be on freedom of a certain section of the population from driving their own vehicle while allowing the rest to go ahead. It would certainly fall afoul of the constitution.
Anyway, that is for lawyers to argue in the court.
In the relevant matter, without seeing the actual circular, I don't think we can really say whether the contention of HR is right that she will be terminated if she drives home on her own.

From India, Mumbai
I appreciate the comments.
In fact, such Rules are made keeping in mind the masses and the under-privileged who may not be fortunate to have their own transport.
Even though it might put a few to inconvenience. Just like people driving BMWs,Audis, Toyota Land Cruisers etc may find the existing speed limits in India as irksome and a waste of time. However, the government must think of the pedestrians and people on pavement.
At the same time, the companies are incurring huge costs in providing such protection to women employees. I am afraid some (unscrupulous) companies at some point of time in future :
May ask ALL WOMEN EMPLOYEES at the time of joining, that they MUST GIVE AN UNDERTAKING that they will use their own transport, and indemnify the Company of any such security responsibility.. !!!
We must be astute enough to think beyond... and also consider the potential misuse.
Warm regards.

From India, Delhi
All fundamental rights are not absolute and are subject to some reasonable restrictions. What is reasonable or not is for the court to decide. Now this restriction of travelling in company's vehicle with armed security guard, stipulated the company, appears to be reasonable (to me), considering the sheer number of rape cases all over the country and even abroad.
What exactly offends the lady in question (apart from her freedom of action/choice) is however not clear.

From India, Pune

This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™