The provision of harsh penalty prescribed in Section 106 (2) of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for offences committed in hit-and-run cases was resented by truck drivers who described it as “kaala kanoon” or black law. They went on strike across the nation and demanded its scrapping.
The BNS was brought in by the Narendra Modi regime in place of the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was passed in the recently concluded winter session of Parliament with hardly any discussion, and that too after 144 Members of Parliament belonging to several opposition parties were suspended following their protest when Union home minister Amit Shah did not make a statement in the Parliament on the issue of breach of security committed by some youth who trespassed the Lok Sabha chamber and released gas from a canister.
The BNS provided a legal structure to make drivers culpable in cases of death, not amounting homicide, caused by rash and negligent driving and prescribed 10 years of imprisonment or a fine of Rs 7 lakh for those offenders who flee the accident site without reporting the incident to designated authorities. This new penalty is far higher than the two-year imprisonment prescribed in the IPC and, therefore, was resented by truck drivers who protested against the stringent penal provision across the nation and paralysed the supply chain when the trucks and lorries they were driving came to stand still following their countrywide strike.
Home ministry’s statement
Reckoning that the strike has caused a grave crisis by seriously disrupting the supply of essential items across the country, the Union home secretary had parleys with the striking drivers and their representatives on January 2 and issued a statement. While taking cognisance of the concerns of truckers regarding the provision of 10 years imprisonment and fine, under Section 106 (2) of BNS, it made it clear that these new laws and provisions have not yet come into force and the decision to invoke that section will be taken only after consultation with the All India Motor Transport Congress.
Sadly, this unambiguously brings out the crucial point that the lawmaking process anchored in deliberative and consultative method had not been followed by the Modi regime before it was taken up in the Parliament. Had the deliberative and consultative process been followed by the powers that be, the Union home ministry would have engaged itself with the association of drivers or their representatives to ascertain their views on those stringent measures to deal with rash and negligent driving. Tragically, the consultation is now going to take place after the law has been enacted following the assent it has got from the President of India.
Also read: Second Avatar of the Criminal Law Bills: The Key Changes
Minimum government and maximum governance exposed
The Modi regime, which often claimed that it would ushering in the era of ‘minimum government and maximum governance’, has dispensed with the process of deliberation and consultation for framing laws which remain at the heart of governance. It is quite sad that legislations are taken up in Parliament without referring most of these to the department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees for scrutiny and examination on a bipartisan basis.
The Bills are now passed without adequate discussion on the floor of both the Houses of Parliament and thereby not generating the legislative intent behind those Bills which get enacted eventually by employing majority strength of the ruling party. It is well known that Bills are framed by government departments and, therefore, these represent the government’s intent. When those Bills are adequately discussed in both the Houses of the Parliament and its clauses are scrutinised and debated, the legislative intent of the apex legislature is expressed.
It is rather unfortunate that when the BNS was taken up for discussion, hardly two hours were allotted for discussion on a measure which aimed at fundamentally altering the criminal code. By doing away with the deliberative and consultative process of law making, the views and interests of stakeholders are lost sight of and it results in the imposition of the government’s intent on the citizenry, who are hardly persuaded to follow that law in the making of which they had no role. Exactly the same thing happened to four farm laws, which were enacted by the Modi regime in 2020 without consulting the farmers and their unions, and only after the massive year long movement of farmers against those laws did the government eventually concede to the demand of farmers for their repeal.
The repeal of the farm laws and now the announcement of the Union home ministry that the section of BNS dealing with stringent punishment for drivers would not be implemented without consulting them clearly shows that the law making process followed by Modi regime is seriously flawed, as it is based on the crude majority it has in Parliament and not founded on a deliberative and consultative process.
Gandhi’s warning
On January 16, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi had thoughtfully said, “No Cabinet worthy of being representative of a large mass of mankind can afford to take any step merely because it is likely to win the hasty applause of an unthinking public. In the midst of insanity, should not our best representatives retain sanity and bravely prevent a wreck of the ship of State under their management?”
The restoration of sanity and its retention lies in restoring the deliberative and consultative process of law making to “prevent a wreck of the ship of State”.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.
