Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 outlaws altering a vehicle's manufacturer specifications — and the Supreme Court reads that line strictly. Yet the Constitution leaves Kerala one narrow, deliberate doorway. It begins at Entry 35, List III, runs through Article 254(2), and ends at the desk of the President of India. This is a roadmap, not a workaround.
An Act of the Kerala Legislature — not a rule, circular, or executive order.
The Bill must be reserved for the President's consideration before it takes effect.
Parliament retains the power to later amend, vary, or repeal the State law.
"Mechanically propelled vehicles" sit at Entry 35, List III of the Seventh Schedule — the Concurrent List. That means Parliament can legislate, the State can also legislate, and any clash is resolved through Article 254. The subject is not exclusively Union territory.
Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 bars alterations that change manufacturer specifications, save for limited Centre-approved retrofitments. The Supreme Court has, in recent decisions, read the provision strictly: alterations beyond the approved carve-outs are impermissible under the present central regime.
Where a State law on a Concurrent List subject is repugnant to an earlier Union law, it may still prevail in that State — if it has been reserved for the President's consideration and has received assent. This is the doorway Kerala must walk through, deliberately.
Each step is constitutionally load-bearing. Skip one, and the law falls to Article 254(1) — void to the extent of repugnancy. Hold the sequence, and Kerala lawfully creates space for regulated vehicle modifications within its territory.
A standalone Kerala Act addressing vehicle modifications, written to consciously occupy the field carved out by Entry 35, List III.
The Bill must name §52 of the MV Act and acknowledge the repugnancy — silence here is fatal under the Kaiser-I-Hind rule on express assent.
Define which modifications, with technical safety thresholds, certified workshops, emissions ceilings, and registration markers.
Ordinary legislative procedure. Concurrent List subjects do not need a special majority.
The Governor refers the Bill to the President under Article 200. Without this step, no §254(2) shield arises.
On assent, the State law prevails in Kerala notwithstanding §52 — until and unless Parliament later legislates over it.
The proviso to Article 254(2) preserves Union supremacy. Parliament may, at any later date, enact a law "adding to, amending, varying or repealing" the State law that received assent.
Presidential assent is therefore powerful protection, not permanent immunity. Kerala's law lives at Parliament's tolerance — but it lives.
States have invoked Article 254(2) for permit regulation, transport control, taxation structures, and regional transport variations — and received assent.
There is, however, no major reported Supreme Court case of a State expressly overriding §52's vehicle-modification restrictions. Kerala would be drawing the first map of this particular doorway.
