The answer is: C
Explanation
The correct answer is C: The rule that makes helmets compulsory is a reasonable restriction on the right under Article 19(1)(d), and moreover, is in the interests of the general public. Therefore, the challenge will not succeed.
Explanation:
Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India to all citizens. However, Article 19(2) (5) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the general public.
In this case, the state has passed a legislation making it mandatory for all persons riding two-wheelers to wear helmets, extending to both the driver and any passenger. The challenge is based on the argument that this rule violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d).
However, the key issue here is whether the rule constitutes a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public. The safety of persons riding two-wheelers can be considered a matter of public interest. Road safety is a valid concern, and wearing helmets can significantly reduce the risk of head injuries and fatalities in accidents involving two-wheelers. Therefore, the requirement to wear helmets can be seen as a reasonable restriction on the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, as it serves a legitimate public interest in ensuring road safety.
Option C correctly states that the rule is a reasonable restriction and is in the interests of the general public. Therefore, the challenge is unlikely to succeed.