Rash and negligent driving by "adventurist" motorists needs to be curbed with "iron hand", Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court today, seeking stringent punishment for checking the menace.
The top law officer told the apex court that the provison of the Motor Vehciles Act and section 304A (causing death by rash and negligent act) of the IPC, which provides for maximum two years jail term, was inadequate to deal with the menace of rash and negligent driving.
"On a query being made whether the said provision (of the MV Act) is sufficient for adequate handling of the situation in praesenti (at the present time), the answer of Attorney General is an emphatic 'No'.
"We appreciate the concern shown by Rohtagi and we are sure he will apprise the competent authorities to have a revisit of the relevant provisions," a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan said.
The bench had sought the assistance of Rohatgi to know the fate of apex court's suggestions, given in two earlier verdicts, to Parliament to re-visit the law dealing with mishaps causing death and injuries to innocents on roads due to rash and negligent driving.
Referring to an earlier order, the bench said, "the Court had also expressed its agony about the number of vehicular accidents that take place in this country and how lakhs of people breathed their last or lose their limbs in such accidents because of the attitude, behaviour and conduct of the drivers.
"A suggestion was given in the said authority that Section 304-A of the IPC requires to have a re-look because the punishment provided therein is absolutely inadequate in the context of the modern day."
Rohatgi shared the concern of the bench on inadequacy of penal provisons to deal with the menace and said the manner in which vehicular accidents take place required "stern handling".
He also submitted that the IPC provision covers "all kinds of deaths by negligence and, therefore, mere providing of higher punishment may not sub-serve the cause of justice".
"Needless to say, there cannot be any dispute about the same but this Court is really concerned with the vehicular accidents that extinguish the life-spark of many because of the whim and fancy, adventurism and harbouring of the notion that they are 'larger than life' of the men at the wheel," the bench observed.
(Reopens LGD25)
During the hearing, the bench said "it is a matter of common knowledge that the drivers drive because of their profession but 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 in geometrical manner and the people are in a competition to pick up the speed."
Advising serious action to curb the menace, the Attorney General said that deaths due to such mishaps are "dangerous".
He also referred to the use of mobile phones while driving and said that it has "disastrous consequences".
"The effect is the person gets into misery or he causes miseries to others," he said adding that such drivers, who use mobile ear plugs while driving, have also been booked under the MV Act. However, he admitted that it is not adequate.
The bench asked Rohtagi to apprise "competent authorities to have a revisit of the relevant provisions" and listed the matter for further hearing on December 6.
Earlier, the bench had termed as "absolutely inadequate" the maximum punishment for causing death by rash or negligent act, of up to two years jail term and a fine prescribed for the offence under the IPC and had asked the AG to assist it.
