We need proper vehicle-modification regulations codified into law with Presidential assent — not the present limbo of uncertainty, conflicting interpretations, and arbitrary enforcement that leaves owners, restorers, and enthusiasts guessing. Most of what is currently being discussed is inadequate and ignores the practical realities of ownership, restoration, and automotive innovation. This brief sets out the constitutional path, the specific modifications that should be permitted, and a public vote on what people actually want.
Select every modification you want to see legalised, add your details, complete the verification, and cast your vote. Results update live so everyone can see what the community actually wants codified into law.
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. 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 a vehicle's 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 within 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.
The law should explicitly permit and regulate the following modifications, each subject to safety inspection, emissions compliance, and roadworthiness certification. The goal is a transparent, rule-based regime built on objective engineering standards — not the arbitrary discretion of individual officers.
Vehicle modification should be regulated, inspected, and certified — not effectively prohibited. The focus belongs on safety, emissions, and roadworthiness, not on preventing customisation altogether. Many developed automotive markets already permit these modifications under clear technical standards. India, and Kerala first, should adopt a similar framework.
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.
