Parliament Panel Mulls 7 Years In Jail For Drunk Driving Death

Coming straight to the core point, let me begin first and foremost by disclosing here that the government is contemplating to increase the jail term for deaths caused by drunk drivers to seven years and may frame rules for lifetime payment of third party insurance premium of any vehicle at the time of registration. It is known to one and all that life is considered very cheap in India. This alone explains why until now we used to keep hearing in news how some drunken driver killed many and still managed to come out on bail very easily within no time and hardly  went to jail for few months or for 1 year or 2 years at the most.

It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that such a lenient treatment in dealing with drunk driving death was hugely responsible for more and people caring two hoots for anything and causing many deaths after drinking and then indulging in rash driving! But from now onwards not any more! They too will now face the long axe of the law!

While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me also inform them that the Parliamentary Select Committee’s report on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, which was submitted to the Rajya Sabha on December 22, 2017 said that the road transport ministry had informed it at the time of framing subordinate legislation that 15 issues will be addressed. One of the 15 issues is “punishment in case of death in an accident due to drunk driving is proposed to be enhanced up to seven years in line with proposed amendments to the IPC.” This is the crying need of the hour also.

Needless to say, the earlier this is done, the earlier the drunken drivers will be behind bars. No doubt, this will compel drivers to be very cautious while driving. They will themselves make sure ten times that they don’t drink while driving so that it does not result in any kind of untoward accident.

For my esteemed readers exclusive indulgence, let me also inform them that at present, drunk drivers causing death are booked under Section 304A (causing death due to negligence) and such offenders face a two-year jail term or fine or both. This is a very light punishment. None other than the Supreme Court itself has already termed this penalty as “absolutely inadequate. It has also minced absolutely no words in seeking harsher punishments for such an offence to reduce road deaths.

To be sure, though earlier a Standing Committee had recommended to the transport ministry that drunk drivers causing death should be tried for “culpable homicide” attracting a 10-year jail term, the latter had referred it to the home ministry for taking the necessary measures. The transport ministry had also told the parliamentary panel that rules will be framed to compel traffic rule violators to spend time in surgical OPDs of road accident victims to understand the pain caused to others. This would compel them to indulge in soul searching as to why they drove so rashly without caring the least for others thus harming them seriously or even killing them for no fault of theirs!    

To say the least, the transport ministry had also told the parliamentary panel that appropriate rules would be framed to control the speed of vehicles, especially those involved in racing and showing stunts on roads. Moreover, the ministry will come up with rules to set uniform standards for breathalysers and mandatory deployment of two drivers in vehicles that are travelling more than 500 km. Four members of the panel have submitted dissent notes on issues including registration of vehicles at dealers end rather than by RTOs, allowing more private players to operate on regular bus routes and limiting compensation for deaths and serious injuries.

It also must be brought out here that though the panel has recommended enactment of the legislation, it has recommended that every traffic policeman or transport department official enforcing law should have body cameras. Also, the offences recorded should be digitally stored and monitored in the control room. The report also adduced the reasons for it by pointing out that, “The Committee feels that this will reduce arbitrariness and corruption by enforcement officials.”

It also cannot be lost on us that the Committee has also recommended to state enforcement agencies to implement the law to protect pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. It has recommended that the ministry frame rules for a “national permit” for buses on the lines of trucks. The panel has said that bus operators are demanding an “open road policy” just like the “open sky policy” and all permits should be made national permits and the objective should be one nation, one permit and one tax.

All said and done, the stringent punishment proposed must be immediately implemented. There can be no two opinions on it. This will certainly ensure that those who take the lives of others don’t escape lightly by just serving two years in jail at the most.

On a concluding note, the landmark recommendation of the Parliamentary Select Committee’s report must be now swiftly and strictly enforced to check the growing number of road accidents! This is the crying need of the hour. It cannot be lightly dismissed that India accounts for the highest number of road accidents in the world.

It has to be checked now and for this to happen the law has to be made more stricter as recommended! There can be no denying or disputing it! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be and the lesser will be the number of people who will lose their invaluable lives because of accidents on roads as we keep seeing so often!