The provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) that treats hit-and-run accident cases as an aggravated form of the offence of causing death by rashness or negligence will be the first in the new, yet- to-be implemented code to be scrutinized for its severity.
Worried truck drivers - With truck drivers worried about the implications of Section 106 of the BNS abstaining from work, the government has promised to bring it into play only after consultations with the All India Motor Transport Congress.
However, with the transporters' body taking the stand that the strike was primarily resorted to by the drivers who feared additional criminal liability, the issue will require tactful handling.
Issue -Transport Workers Rally for Stricter Laws on Hit-and-Run Accidents - Recently, transport workers have taken up the issue of hit-and-run accidents, which has become a growing concern in their industry. While it may seem unjustified to strike against more stringent laws on this matter, given that road accidents have become a leading cause of fatalities in the country, this has also raised questions about the adequacy of current laws. Should the jail term for accidents be increased from two to five years in all cases, and up to 10 years in instances where accidents are not reported to authorities? These are the questions that are now being asked.
Section 106 of BNS
Section 106 of the BNS will replace Section 304A of the IPC, which punished the causing of death by rash and negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide.
The existing section provides for a two-year jail term. There are three components to Section 106: first, it prescribes a prison term of up to five years, besides a fine, for causing death due to rash or negligent acts; second, it provides for reduced criminal liability for registered medical doctors of two years in jail, if death occurred in the course of a medical procedure.
The second clause concerns road accidents in which, if the person involved in rash and negligent driving "escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident", the imprisonment may extend to 10 years and a fine.
Investigating "Hit-and-Run" Incidents and Proving Culpability-When drivers flee the scene of an accident, it is often because they fear being lynched. In such cases, authorities may assume that these drivers could simply leave the scene and report to police later. However, when the offending vehicle is not identified, it is classified as a "hit-and-run".
It is important to note that once the person responsible for a fatal accident is identified, the burden of proving their culpability for rashness or negligence still falls on the police.
Conclusion - Given that many accidents are caused due to poor road conditions too, a relevant question is whether the law should focus on raising prison terms or on a comprehensive accident prevention policy package covering imprisonment, compensation and safety.
The Fundamental Right to Privacy in India's Supreme Court - In August 2017, India's Supreme Court made a significant statement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, by recognizing the fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution. This historic ruling was intended to usher in a new era of protecting civil liberties from arbitrary government actions.
Despite the Puttaswamy ruling, statutory interpretation of rights has seen little change, often displaying a culture of judicial deference to executive authority.
Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, granting extensive search powers to tax authorities, exemplifies the persistence of unchecked executive power.
Historical Context of Income Tax Law: In 1922, the initial income tax law did not include any guidelines for search and seizure, instead depending on civil court powers. Following India's independence, the 1947 Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for disregarding principles of equal treatment.
Search and Seizure Powers Examined: The 1961 reformation introduced Section 132, conferring search and seizure powers, challenged in Pooran Mal vs Director of Inspection (1973).The Court’s reliance on M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, justifying unbridled state power, has since been reconsidered.
Proportionality Doctrine: The Puttaswamy judgment is a prime example of the evolution in constitutional interpretation, as it emphasizes the right to privacy as a fundamental aspect of personal liberty. The proportionality doctrine is a byproduct of this ruling, dictating that any infringement on rights must serve a legitimate aim, be rationally connected to its goal, and lack less intrusive alternatives. However, the judiciary, under the Wednesbury principle, places more emphasis on the honesty of belief than on the proportionality and legitimacy of the search.
Post-Puttaswamy Imperatives: The Wednesbury rule has no place post- Puttaswamy, especially concerning fundamental rights. Constitutional canon demands strict adherence to statutory law, requiring warrants for searches to withstand rigorous judicial review.
(The Wednesbury Principle states that if a decision is so unreasonable that no sensible authority could ever take it, such decisions are liable to be quashed through judicial review. This sets out the standard of reasonableness to be followed by public bodies in their decisions.)
Conclusion: Upholding the spirit of the Puttaswamy judgment is imperative for preventing executive overreach and safeguarding individual rights. A renewed focus on proportionality and a culture of justification can ensure that statutory powers, such as those in income tax laws, align with constitutional principles.
The IMF raises concerns about India’s long-term debt sustainability and reclassifies its exchange rate regime. India dismisses worst-case projections. Challenges include global debt rise, asymmetric burden, credit rating stagnation, and fiscal concerns in an election year.
IMF projects India’s government debt could reach 100% of GDP by fiscal 2028.Emphasis on the need for prudent debt management amid climate change mitigation targets and resilience improvement.
Indian Government’s Response: Finance Ministry dismisses IMF projections as a “worst-case scenario,” not a fait accompli.
Global public debt increased fourfold since 2000, reaching a record $92 trillion in 2022.Developing countries, including India, account for a significant portion, with debt rising due to development needs, cost-of-living crisis, and climate change.
Asymmetric Debt Burden: Developing countries face higher interest rates, impacting debt sustainability. Number of countries with interest spending at 10% or more of public revenues increased from 29 in 2010 to 55 in 2020.
Credit Rating Challenges for India: India struggles to enhance credit ratings despite being the fastest-growing major economy. Consistent ‘BBB-‘ rating by Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings since August 2006.
Debt Levels in India: Union government’s debt at ₹6 trillion, 57.1% of GDP, as of March 2023. State governments’ debt about 28% of GDP. Public debt-to-GDP ratio has barely increased from 81% in 2005-06 to 84% in 2021-22, back to 81% in 2022-23.
Fiscal Front Challenges: Possibility of fiscal slippage in FY24, attributed to higher expenditure on employment guarantee schemes and subsidies. Concerns about increased subsidies in an election year, affecting fiscal correction path.
Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act (FRBMA):FRBMA specifies debt-GDP targets for the Centre, States, and their combined accounts at 40%, 20%, and 60%, respectively. Higher public debt levels than FRBMA targets.
Conclusion: Short-term fiscal challenges, particularly in an election year, need addressing to avoid worst-case scenarios projected by the IMF in the medium term.
