Colonial hangover
THE TRIBUNE DEBATE: Hit-and-run penal provision
IT seems that the truckers who went on a strike earlier this week over a new penal provision for hit-and-run cases would prefer things the colonial way. Responding swiftly to the Bharatiyakaran of criminal laws, the truckers opposed the grossly enhanced punishment for such cases. The strike paralysed road traffic and disrupted the supply of essential goods across the country. Unlike Opposition MPs, whose protest against the ‘poorly drafted’ and ‘hastily enacted’ replacement for the three colonial-era criminal laws during the recent winter session of Parliament petered out, the truckers had their way. The Union government has assured them that it would reconsider the new provision in consultation with their representatives.
The enhanced punishment would only lead to more attempts to flee with the vehicle without leaving a trace rather than voluntarily joining the investigation.
The mindset reflected in the new criminal laws is no different from that of the colonial era, notwithstanding the use of words like nyay and suraksha instead of ‘penal’ and ‘criminal’ in the respective titles of the new penal and procedural codes. The colonial rulers came up with complicated procedures and stringent punishment to control their subjects; the new laws, which are to a great extent a replication of the colonial-era laws, apparently have a similar intent. The governance matrix of authority-accountability-accessibility is inclined towards the discretion resting with the powers that be.
Sir Chhotu Ram, a legendary kisan-politician and a minister in pre-Independence Punjab, had remarked that the British justice system was remarkable in the Indian context as it applied to all sections of the Indian society uniformly for the first time in our history. But, he lamented, there was no space for participation of the common litigant in the dispensation of justice under the unfamiliar system. Not much has changed since Independence. The political power was transferred to a leadership of committed democrats and they spent a few years in giving India an elaborate Constitution. But the colonial-era criminal laws have remained mostly intact. Consequently, the nation, which has a democratic Constitution, is suffering the perils of colonial governance in day-to-day dispensation of justice.
The uproar among the truckers bears testimony to their dilemma. In my professional experience, I have found an average truck driver to be a careful one. He has a heavy vehicle at his command and is required to negotiate unpredictable traffic day in and day out. Being the ‘big brother’ on the road, he is the eternal suspect when involved in an accident, whether guilty or not. At stake is his livelihood and he cannot afford to cough up traffic fines or risk spending time in jail. The merchandise laden on the truck is precious and securing it during the journey is his responsibility. If the potholes on the roads, a hybrid traffic recklessly competing for space and the lack of parking/resting places along the long routes are stumbling blocks for the truckers, the phenomenal expansion of speedways (highways, expressways) without ensuring matching safety features is a constant nightmare for them. These include the elements of road engineering and connectivity, traffic education and segregation, speed and lane driving enforcement, drunken driving and even unauthorised access and encroachments. The agencies responsible for these aspects are seldom made accountable for an accident. None of these has been tackled in the new code.
Whatever may be the claim, the first responders such as the police, the ambulance, the recovery van and fire tenders take their time to reach the accident site and are not always sure of proving adequate to the demands of the emergency. To expect the truck driver involved in a serious accident to stick around in the face of the immediate outburst of the gathered crowd may be the ideal thing but not always practical. Sometimes, running away is not an option but a necessity. The standard drill is to quietly disappear from the scene, clandestinely keeping a watch over the vehicle and informing the owner who would, in turn, get in touch with the authorities. Running away with the vehicle is not a smart option these days, especially on a route dotted with cameras and toll booths. Once identified, the absconding vehicle will have to be brought back to the police station having jurisdiction over the accident site. Such a conduct will also be viewed adversely during court proceedings.
In any case, the enhanced punishment would only encourage more attempts to flee with the vehicle without leaving a trace rather than voluntarily joining the investigation. It is one of the ongoing malpractices to substitute the rich and influential culprit with a paid one during the investigation in connivance with the police after a hit-and-run mishap, as portrayed so tellingly in Bollywood movie Jolly LLB. No doubt, ‘hit and run’ is a classic villain in popular perception as well, but criminology will vouch that only a fairly applicable law would elicit the desired lawful response. It would be more helpful if attending to the injured and extending assistance to the authorities could be incentivised by way of reduced punishment.
It is being expressed in certain quarters that the implementation of the new laws in a haste might disturb judicial equanimity and lead to administrative overreach. Poorly drafted provisions, illogical shuffling of existing sections in the three codes, an emphasis on enhanced sentencing, denial of bail, and above all, the inherent inability of the existing administrative and judicial apparatus to undertake their additional tasks even nominally all point in this direction. The metaphor of ‘hit and run’ can be extended to how the three Bills were passed in Parliament amid walkouts and suspensions, allowing no debate. The truckers have rightly highlighted the severity and urgency of the problem.
