+
 
For the best experience, open
m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser or Download our App.

As Union Govt Yields to Nationwide Outcry, Here’s a Look at What New Hit-and-Run Law Says

government
While the government has promised to implement the law only after a discussion with the truckers’ association, the BJP has posted a laudatory comment on the law on social media.
Representative image. Photo: Annie Spratt/Unsplash
Support Free & Independent Journalism

Good morning, we need your help!!

Since May 2015, The Wire has been committed to the truth and presenting you with journalism that is fearless, truthful, and independent. Over the years there have been many attempts to throttle our reporting by way of lawsuits, FIRs and other strong arm tactics. It is your support that has kept independent journalism and free press alive in India.

If we raise funds from 2500 readers every month we will be able to pay salaries on time and keep our lights on. What you get is fearless journalism in your corner. It is that simple.

Contributions as little as ₹ 200 a month or ₹ 2500 a year keeps us going. Think of it as a subscription to the truth. We hope you stand with us and support us.

Bhopal: In Madhya Pradesh – as in many other parts of the country – a significant protest unfolded over the last three days as truck and bus drivers voiced their opposition to the hit-and-run provision in the new criminal law. Key districts, including Indore and Bhopal, witnessed disruptions in educational transportation, causing distress for students and parents alike. This prompted some Bhopal schools to declare impromptu holidays. Tensions flared, with clashes between law enforcement and demonstrators in Khargone.

A provision in the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 imposes fines up to Rs 7 lakh and imprisonment up to 10 years for drivers found guilty in hit-and-run cases.

Initially slated for three days, the strike had a notable impact on the supply chains for goods, affecting both rural areas and urban centres. Fears around escalating vegetable prices and shortages of essentials, including milk and groceries, prompted authorities to expedite the dispatch of petrol tankers to replenish gas stations as many petrol pumps across the state were running out of fuel.

The strike did not remain limited to bus and druck drivers, with taxi, auto-rickshaw and other passenger vehicle drivers adding their voices to the collective grievance, compounding challenges for the public. According to Vijay Kalaria, former vice president (western region) of the All India Motor Transport Congress, around five lakh vehicles came to a standstill in the state. Meanwhile, Rajesh Sen, general Sscretary of the Bus Drivers’ Association, revealed that there was mounting pressure from bus owners, threatening job termination if drivers did not resume operations. Despite the pressure, the drivers remained steadfast, unwilling to yield even at the cost of their jobs.

Truck drivers discontent with the stringent provision initiated a coordinated strike across multiple states, including Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Gujarat.

Private vehicles remained off the roads in Rajasthan for half a day. In Chhattisgarh’s Bilaspur, truck drivers resorted to burning tyres on the roads in protest. Protests by drivers were evident in various districts of Bihar, including the capital city Patna. Truck drivers in Uttarakhand, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh created traffic jams in solidarity. In Maharashtra, truck drivers staged “rasta roko” demonstrations at various locations, heightening concerns about potential fuel shortages. Officials reported a temporary blockage of traffic on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway in the Mira Bhayandar area of Thane district by the protesting truck drivers.

Controversial clause 106 and the questions it raises

The provision in question – clause 106 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) – came under scrutiny as a majority of opposition MPs had vacated the Lok Sabha in a walkout. Seizing the opportunity, the ruling party swiftly pushed the Bill through with a voice vote, sidestepping any deliberation or discourse. This manoeuvre drew criticism for flouting parliamentary norms and undermining the democratic process. Protests ensued, with MPs and activists calling for a thorough review of the Bill by a joint committee. However, the government at the time stood its ground and refused to budge.

Clause 106 of the BNS introduces a provision aimed at curbing the rate of hit-and-run accidents, which annually claim approximately 50,000 lives in India. Clause 106 of the Bill states:

“(1) Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

However, detractors argue that this clause may not serve the public’s best interests due to several reasons:

  • Lack of clarity in defining what constitutes a rash or negligent act.
  • Ignoring the degree of negligence, harm caused, or the offender’s intention.
  • Potential for arbitrary and excessive prosecution, especially in cases like road accidents or medical negligence.
  • Deterrence of assistance in emergency situations due to fear of legal repercussions.
  • Risk of undermining proportionality and fairness in criminal justice.
  • A severe penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for drivers who flee the accident scene or neglect to report the incident to authorities might dissuade individuals from aiding victims or admitting fault, fearing legal repercussions or public backlash.
  • Establishing a presumption of guilt for drivers involved in hit-and-run cases, requiring them to prove their innocence in court. This approach raises concerns about violating the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial, as the onus of proof traditionally rests with the prosecution, not the accused.
  • Failing to address the root causes of road accidents, such as inadequate infrastructure, lack of awareness, corruption or negligence. Rather than emphasising prevention and education, Clause 106 leans on deterrence and retribution, which may prove insufficient in reducing hit-and-run incidents.

Government reassures truckers, urges them to return to work

Issuing a press release late in the evening on Tuesday, the government declared: “The Government of India has taken cognizance of the concerns of truckers regarding the provision of 10 years imprisonment and fine, under Section 106 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and held detailed discussion with the representatives of the All India Motor Transport Congress today. The government wants to point out that these new laws and provisions have not yet come into force. We would also like to point out that the decision to invoke Section 106 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita will be taken only after consultation with the All India Motor Transport Congress. We appeal to All India Motor Transport Congress and all the drivers to return to their respective jobs.”

The government on the one hand claimed transparency, vowing to withhold enforcement of a disputed clause pending a decision, but the ruling party paradoxically lauded the same clause on social media.

On January 2, 2023, the BJP party from their official X handle posted, “Avoid being influenced by others. Understand hit and run laws! These new laws are designed to save more lives in road accidents. They will apply to all vehicles, including two-wheelers, three-wheelers, cars, trucks, tankers, buses, and more.”

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
facebook twitter