Context-

India's recent legislation on hit-and-run incidents, specifically Section 106 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), has ignited widespread protests among transporters and commercial drivers across several states, including Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, and Punjab.

This contentious law stipulates severe penalties, including up to 10 years in jail and a substantial fine, for individuals fleeing an accident spot without reporting the incident to authorities. The transport industry argues that while stringent action in hit-and-run cases is essential, the new law possesses flaws that demand reconsideration.

Backdrop: Alarming Road Accident Statistics

The backdrop of this legislation is the alarming rise in road accident fatalities in India. In 2022, the country witnessed the highest count of road crash fatalities, surpassing 1.68 lakh deaths, averaging 462 deaths daily. Despite a global decrease in road crash deaths,

India experienced a year-on-year increase of 12% in road accidents and 9.4% in fatalities. The economic impact is substantial, with India accounting for about 10% of crash-related deaths globally, resulting in a loss of 5-7% of its GDP annually due to road crashes.

Need for Introduction of New New Hit and Run Law

●     To Curb Hit-and-Run Accidents: These cases annually claim around 50,000 lives. The National Crime Records Bureau recorded a staggering 47,806 hit-and-run incidents in 2022.

●     To Increase Accountability: By imposing stricter penalties, it will increase the accountability and responsibility of drivers involved in such accidents.

●     To Make Required Changes to the Criminal Justice System: The new law replaces the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) and makes overhauling changes to the criminal justice system, including changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Evidence Act.

●     More Rights for Victims: The new law grants victims the right to quick compensation, right to speak during trials, which can help ensure a fairer legal process for affected persons of hit-and-run accidents.

●     To Promote Road Safety: By imposing stricter penalties, it would help in promoting road safety and discourage dangerous driving behavior.

Protests and Demands

●     Transporters and commercial drivers have vehemently protested against Section 106 (2) of the BNS, demanding its withdrawal or amendment.

●     The primary concerns raised by the protestors include the seemingly excessive punishment of 10 years imprisonment and a ₹7 lakh fine for drivers who flee accident scenes without reporting.

●     They argue that such penalties fail to consider the challenging work conditions of drivers, encompassing long hours and difficult roads.

●     Furthermore, drivers express apprehensions about potential accidents caused by factors beyond their control, such as poor visibility due to fog, coupled with fears of mob violence against them when stopping to assist at accident sites.

The Need for Balance: Road Safety vs. Fair Treatment of Drivers

While acknowledging the need for stringent measures to curb hit-and-run incidents, it is crucial to address the transporters' valid concerns. The general perception among drivers is that they are often unfairly blamed for accidents, irrespective of the actual circumstances. The punishment prescribed by the law is deemed disproportionate and does not align with the practical realities of road transport and the diverse nature of accidents.

Analyzing the Legislation: Fact-Checking and Clarifications

Contrary to widely circulated views, Section 106 (2) of the BNS does not explicitly mention a fine of ₹7 lakh for fleeing an accident spot. The misinformation circulating among protestors and the public needs correction. Additionally, the compensation framework for victims of hit-and-run accidents is outlined in Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, with compensation amounts set at ₹2 lakh for death and ₹50,000 for grievous hurt. This compensation is not recoverable from the drivers, providing a more nuanced perspective on financial implications.

Revisiting the Legislation: A Call for Nuanced Approach

The protests highlight the need to revisit and reconcile the two clauses in Section 106 of the BNS. The categorization of liability for rash or negligent driving must be carefully examined to ensure fair treatment for the diverse range of individuals within the transport industry. For instance, an exception has been made under 106 (1) for doctors involved in rash or negligent acts, where the punishment is limited to two years with a fine. This selective categorization raises concerns about equality, necessitating a broader assessment of liabilities for individuals in various sectors.

Addressing Ambiguities and Unintended Consequences

Section 106 (2) of the BNS has become a focal point for protests, particularly among truck drivers. The section does not differentiate between rash and negligent driving, which calls for a nuanced approach in determining liability and imposing commensurate punishment. An essential consideration in such cases is the contributory factors in negligent acts, including commuter behavior, road conditions, and lighting. Applying a one-size-fits-all approach may lead to prejudice against drivers facing different circumstances.

Proposed Solutions and the Way Forward

Rather than enforcing a blanket 10-year imprisonment for all cases, a more balanced approach could involve categorizing offenses based on liabilities. This would address the concerns of drivers and create a fairer system. Additionally, ambiguities surrounding Section 106 (2) need clarification, especially in cases of accidents resulting in minor injuries. Implementing measures like community service, revoking of driving licenses, or mandatory driving retests for minor incidents can help avoid unnecessary criminalization.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while road safety is of paramount importance, it is crucial to strike a balance that considers the unique challenges faced by drivers in the transport industry. Revisiting and amending Section 106 (2) of the BNS can provide an opportunity to address these concerns, ensuring a fair and effective legal framework that promotes road safety without unduly burdening drivers. As India grapples with the high toll of road accidents, finding common ground between legislation and the practicalities of the transport industry is imperative for lasting solutions.

Source - The Hindu