Increase punishment for talking on phone while driving, apex court tells govt

NOTING THAT “uncontrolled propensity for adventure” and “competition to pick up speed” have to be sternly dealt with, the Supremecourtwednesdayurged the government to enhance punishment for those who talk on cellphones while driving, and called for exemplary penalty for driving dangerously.

The appeal by a bench led by Justice Dipak Misra was supported by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who also said that the punishment for driving dangerously was inadequate under the Motor Vehicles Act and needs to be revisited.

A bench led by Justice Dipak Misra was hearing a case of rash and negligent driving when it sought the assistance of the AG in examining whether pertinent statutes required amendments to have more stringent punishment where rash driving causes death.

The court was initially concerned that a maximum punishment of two years in jail with fine under Section 304A of the IPC may not serve the purpose of a law as deterrent.

Rohatgi agreed with the bench that cases of death due to rash driving require “stern handling” but pointed out that enhancing punishment under Section 304A might not serve the purpose, since this provision was applicable not only to death caused due to negligent driving, but to all acts of negligence that could result in somebody’s death.

At this, the bench said: “There are individuals who drive the vehicle because of their uncontrolled propensity for adventure. They really do not care for the lives of others. It can be stated with certitude that the number of vehicles in the country has increased...and the people are in a competition to pick up speed.”

Rohatgi told the court that death due to reckless driving was “tragic” and that it required to be curbed strongly. He added that many such accidents take place because people use cellphones while driving.

The court was informed that such offenders are booked under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, which entails punishment for driving dangerously. This provision provided for a maximum jail term of six months or a fine of Rs 1,000 for the first offence. Imprisonment for two years or a fine of Rs 2,000 is provided for a subsequent offence.

The bench observed that Section 184 was drafted in a manner that those booked under it could get off the hook by paying only Rs 1,000 or Rs 2,000. When asked, the AG agreed that the punishment was inadequate.

“We appreciate the concern shown by Mr. Rohatgi and, we are sure, he will apprise the competent authorities to have a revisit of the relevant provisions.” the bench said. The matter will be heard next in December.