HIT-AND-RUN LAWS

2. Protests Erupt Over New Legislation

• The recent enactment of the new law has triggered widespread protests, particularly among truck drivers, creating disruptions across multiple states in India.
• In Maharashtra, the protest escalated significantly, with truck drivers staging roadblocks.
• The situation turned volatile, leading to incidents of stone-pelting that resulted in injuries to police personnel and damage to vehicles.
• Additionally, there are growing concerns about potential fuel shortages as a consequence of the ongoing unrest.
• Chhattisgarh experienced a similar upheaval, as approximately 12,000 private bus drivers initiated a strike. This widespread strike left commuters stranded in major cities and caused panic at petrol pumps due to the disruption in regular transportation services.
• The repercussions of the protests extended to other states like West Bengal, Punjab, and Madhya Pradesh, where normalcy has come to a grinding halt. These regions reported disruptions and standstills, further emphasizing the widespread impact of the protests against the newly introduced legislation.

3. Protesters' Demands and Concerns

• Transporters and commercial drivers have articulated several demands, expressing reservations about the recently enacted legislation on hit-and-run incidents.
• Protesters are particularly concerned that the new law imposes stringent punishment even in cases of unintentional accidents.
• Their primary objection revolves around the severe penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a ₹7 lakh fine for drivers who flee the accident scene without reporting it.
• They argue that such penalties fail to account for the challenging work conditions they face, including long driving hours and difficult road conditions.
• Transporters contend that the prescribed punishment is excessive and does not take into consideration the practical challenges of their profession.
• They highlight factors beyond a driver's control, such as poor visibility due to fog, which may contribute to accidents.
• Additionally, drivers fear mob violence if they stop to assist the injured at accident sites, further fueling their opposition to the law.
• Protesters express a general perception that drivers are often unfairly blamed for accidents, irrespective of the actual circumstances.
• They argue that the punishment outlined by the law is disproportionate and does not align with the realities of road transport and the unpredictable nature of accidents.
• Concerns are raised about the potential misuse of the law by law enforcement agencies to the detriment of drivers.
• Protesters fear that harsh penalties could be leveraged against them unfairly, jeopardizing their livelihoods and tarnishing the reputation of the transport industry as a whole.
• There is a shared apprehension that such stringent measures might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in the transportation profession.

4. Rationale Behind the New Legislation

• The introduction of the new law is underscored by the alarming figures about road accidents in India, highlighting the imperative need for stringent measures to address the crisis.
• The backdrop of the new legislation is framed by unsettling figures related to road accidents in India. In 2022, the country witnessed the highest count of road crash fatalities, surpassing 1.68 lakh deaths.
• This translates to an average of 462 deaths daily, pointing towards a critical and pervasive issue.
• Despite a global decrease of 5% in road crash deaths, India experienced a concerning year-on-year increase of 12% in road accidents and 9.4% in fatalities in the same year.
• The gravity of the situation is further emphasized by the fact that the country averages 19 deaths every hour due to road accidents, equating to nearly one death every three and a half minutes.
• More than half of all road fatalities occurred on national and State highways, constituting less than 5% of the total road network. This statistic underscores the critical need for interventions, especially on major road arteries.
• Despite possessing only 1% of the world's vehicles, India accounts for approximately 10% of crash-related deaths globally.
• The economic toll is significant, with India incurring an annual loss of 5-7% of its GDP due to road crashes, highlighting the multifaceted impact of the road safety crisis.

5. The Morality Behind the Hit-and-Run Law

The new legislation addressing hit-and-run incidents is underpinned by a fundamental principle, responding to the alarming statistics and societal concerns surrounding road accidents in India.

Expressive Function for Deterrence

The law, reflected in the context of 47,806 recorded hit-and-run incidents resulting in 50,815 deaths in 2022, seeks to serve an expressive function. One key aspect is the deterrence of drivers from engaging in rash and negligent driving practices that may lead to fatalities. The principle here is to emphasize the gravity of the offence and discourage reckless behaviour on the roads through the imposition of stringent punishment.

Positive Obligation and Reporting Duty

On the other side, the law introduces a positive obligation on the part of the offender. If an individual causes death due to rash and negligent driving, attempting to escape legal consequences triggers penalties. The law mandates reporting such incidents to the police or magistrate, and there are provisions to criminalize any omission in fulfilling this duty. This legal duty arises from a legislative intent to translate moral responsibility into a legal obligation, reinforcing accountability towards the victim of a road accident.

Precedents in Motor Vehicle Legislation

This conversion of moral responsibility into a legal duty is not novel in the realm of motor vehicle accidents. For instance, Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, obliges the driver to take reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured, emphasizing the ethical responsibility in the aftermath of an accident. Additionally, the question of whether an offender fled the accident spot has been identified as a significant factor in the framework for motor accident claims, as illustrated by the case of Rajesh Tyagi versus Jaibir Singh (2021) formulated by the Delhi High Court.

6. Assessment of Protests and Legal Misconceptions

The ongoing protests against Section 106 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have been driven by certain misconceptions, raising questions about the justification of the demonstrations.

Misconceptions Regarding Penalties

Contrary to widely circulated beliefs, Section 106 (2) of the BNS does not explicitly state a fine of ₹7 lakh for fleeing an accident spot. While the section discusses a maximum punishment of 10 years and a fine, the specific amount of ₹7 lakh is not mentioned in the legislation. It is crucial to correct this misinformation to ensure an accurate understanding of the law.

Compensation Provision in Motor Vehicles Act

Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, plays a role in compensating victims of hit-and-run accidents. The compensation provided for death is ₹2 lakh, and for cases of grievous hurt, it amounts to ₹50,000. Importantly, this compensation is not recoverable from the drivers involved in the accidents, distinguishing it from the penalties outlined in Section 106 (2) of the BNS.

Distinction Between Sub-sections in Section 106

Section 106 of the BNS comprises two sub-sections. Sub-section 1 pertains to cases of rash or negligent driving where reporting the incident to the police results in a punishment of up to five years with a fine. In contrast, Sub-section 2 deals with instances where the driver fails to report the matter and attempts to escape, leading to a more severe punishment of up to 10 years. Notably, despite the increase in the quantum of punishment in Sub-section 2, the offence has not been categorized as non-bailable.

The protests, fueled by certain misconceptions, prompt a critical reassessment of the actual provisions of Section 106 (2) and the necessity for accurate dissemination of legal information.

7. Proposed Revisions for Equitable Treatment

Moving forward, there is a pressing need to review and reconcile Sections 106 (1) and (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to ensure fair treatment for the vast number of truck drivers and individual vehicle drivers across the country.

Challenges with Existing Categorization

The existing categorization under Section 106 (1) of the BNS, offering exceptions for doctors in cases of rash or negligent acts with a punishment of up to two years and a fine, raises concerns about equality and fairness. This limited categorization, while beneficial for doctors, overlooks the varied liability scenarios in other professions, demanding a more inclusive approach.

Contested Nature of Section 106 (2)

Section 106 (2), specifically contested by truck drivers, warrants a reevaluation. One prominent issue is the lack of differentiation between rash and negligent driving, treating them as a single category. To establish a more nuanced and proportionate liability framework, these acts should be treated as distinct, each carrying different degrees of liability. This differentiation is crucial to avoid unjust prejudice against drivers in diverse circumstances.

Consideration of Contributory Factors

Determining liability should involve a comprehensive assessment of contributory factors in negligent acts, including commuter behaviour, road conditions, and lighting. Applying a one-size-fits-all approach under one clause can lead to unfair prejudice against drivers facing varying circumstances. A graded system based on liabilities is proposed to address these concerns.

Differentiated Scales for Penalties

Rather than a uniform 10-year imprisonment for all cases, a differentiated scale based on liabilities should be established. This approach would alleviate the apprehensions of drivers and contribute to a more just legal framework. Ambiguities within the clause should be clarified, explicitly stating that Section 106 (2) applies solely in cases of death resulting from an accident. Minor injuries should not be equated with criminal acts, and alternative measures such as community service, license revocation, or mandatory driving retests could be explored for road accidents resulting in less severe injuries.