Road Accidents End Life of Many Because of Adventurism of Few: SC

The Court expressed its agony over the number of vehicular accidents that take place in the country.

Rash and negligent driving by “adventurist” motorists needs to be curbed with an “iron hand,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, .

Rohatgi who was seeking stringent punishment for the menace told the apex court that the provision of the Motor Vehciles Act and section 304A (causing death by rash and negligent act) of the IPC, which provides for maximum two-year jail term, was inadequate to deal with the menace of rash and negligent driving.

On a query being made on 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 Rohatgi and we are sure he will apprise the competent authorities to have a revisit of the relevant provisions

Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan

Accidents Extinguish the Life-Spark of Many Because of the Adventurism of Few: Supreme Court

The bench had sought the assistance of Rohatgi to know the fate of apex court’s suggestions, given in two earlier verdicts, to the 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 breath 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.

Supreme Court bench 

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.

Supreme Court bench