E-Paper
SC carves 3 exceptions in UP law closing MV offence trials
The Supreme Court exempted certain motor vehicle offences from a UP law aimed at reducing court backlogs, citing concerns over deterrence and justice.
The Supreme Court has carved out three exceptions to a law passed by the Uttar Pradesh government that declared the abatement or closure of all pending trials in motor vehicle offences filed before December 2021 to reduce the backlog of cases in district courts.In an order passed on January 22, the court directed the state to ensure that cases falling under three heads — non-compoundable cases (which cannot be closed by payment of fine), offences punishable with mandatory imprisonment, and repeat offences — are kept out of the ambit of the law passed by the state in 2023.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order in a pending public interest litigation (PIL) related to road accident reforms, where an application was moved challenging the constitutional validity of the UP Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Act, 2023.
The court said, “We are of the view that the state of Uttar Pradesh should proceed further to undertake the necessary amendment in accordance with law. Let the amendment come into force.”
The state itself proposed the three exceptions to the law in a bid to save the law from being struck down. The bench said, “We keep the issue as regards declaring the UP Act No. 4 of 2023 as ultra vires open to be argued further.”
On November 20, the court, while dealing with the application filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain, came down heavily on the UP government and directed secretaries of all concerned departments — legal and transport — to together consider if the abatement of trials could be worked out section-wise.
The state, represented by advocate Ruchira Goel, presented an affidavit detailing the decision taken by the state after the chief secretary deliberated with the two concerned ministries and proposed the amendment to section 9(1) of the 2023 Act, which clearly exempts abatement of trials falling under the three exceptions.
The court granted six weeks for the state’s transport department to give effect to the amended section 9(1).
The November order had highlighted the concerns of the court which had observed that the abatement of trials for the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act as of December 31, 2021, is going to be “drastic” as it would lead to a blanket termination of all old cases regardless of the gravity of each offence.
The provisions under the MV Act, which are non-compoundable or carry a mandatory sentence or fine or both, were reproduced by the court in its November order. This list includes jumping a red light, violating a stop sign, and driving by a drunken person or a person under the influence of drugs, among others.
The order had said, “Traffic offences may appear to be minor in nature, but some of the offences may assume its own significance, for instance, Section 185 of the MV Act (driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs). It is a non-compoundable offence….It is possible that such case may be pending past 5 years, however, should that by itself justify abatement of the proceedings.”
The court was particularly concerned that if such trials are abated and the accused go scot-free, the law will hardly serve as a deterrent to stop such offenders from repeating these crimes. “In a country like India…citizens are not so disciplined insofar as abiding by the traffic rules and regulations is concerned. In such circumstances, there has to be some deterrence so that a check remains on people indulging in offences relating to the MV Act, particularly, the youngsters.”
The court observed yet another “serious” consequence of ending trials in one shot. “This is an age of highly powerful cars, and it is a matter of common experience how accidents are being caused because the drivers are unable to control these powerful cars. The consequences, in this regard, would be extremely grave.”
Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, assisting the court as amicus curiae, informed the court that the 2023 Act should be struck down as it is in direct conflict with a Central law -- MV Act. Before bringing such a law, the UP government neither sent the bill for consideration to the President nor did it receive the Presidential assent, he said, noting this to be a sufficient reason to hold it unconstitutional.
Jain, who brought the issue to the court, said that the proposed amendment appears to be an “eyewash” as none of the MV Act offences carry a mandatory sentence of imprisonment alone as punishment. Further, there is no clarity on what constitutes a “repeat or subsequent” offence, he added.
The issue concerns a huge number of cases. Going by a chart prepared by Jain, 89.7 million e-challans are pending in courts across the country. In UP alone, over 1 million cases are clogging courts.
