Transporters’ strike put on hold! Govt, transporters appeal drivers to resume work

New Delhi: The transporters’ strike put on hold as the Government and the transporters have agreed that transporter workers will resume work immediately. The Government and transporters appeal drivers to resume work.

“We had a discussion with All India Motor Transport Congress representatives, govt want to say that the new rule has not been implemented yet, we all want to say that before implementing Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 106/2, we will have a discussion with All India Motor Transport Congress representatives and then only we will take a decision”, Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla said.

The transporters are protesting against change in the hit-and-run law introduced by the recently-enacted Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The new hit-and-run law imposes stricter penalties on drivers who flee accident spots. According to the law, a driver who flees the scene after an accident will face up to 10 years in jail or a fine of Rs 7 lakh. This law also applies to private vehicle owners. Earlier, under IPC Section 304A, the maximum prison term was for two years.

Why truck, bus and oil tanker drivers protesting against the law?

They argue that these harsh measures will jeopardise their livelihoods, discouraging the drivers and potentially exposing them to mob violence when transporting the injured. Their demand for the repeal of these provisions has led to a nationwide strike.

However, here is the Advocate’s view. Speaking with IANS, advocate Shashank Dewan said: “Punishment is specifically designated for cases of rash and negligent driving, excluding those not engaging in such behaviour. It is crucial to bear in mind this specific clause. The prosecution must ultimately prove factors like intoxication, over-speeding, or engaging in rash and negligent driving.”

He said the threat of hit-and-run is significantly greater, prompting a sense of responsibility among the drivers.

“Accidents can happen without necessarily involving rash or negligent driving,” Dewan added.

On protesters saying the owner of the vehicle should be made responsible, Dewan said that the responsibility lies with the driver.

“Consider a scenario where a driver, perhaps under the influence of alcohol, drives at 140 kmph and causes an accident. It’s not possible for the vehicle owner to personally monitor every driver. In instances where rash driving is not observed, such as a pedestrian crossing the highway without precautions, the prosecution might not be warranted. However, acknowledging this perspective may seem idealistic,” he said.

(With inputs from IANS)

Also read: Latest Guidelines On Intensive Care Unit Admissions Issued: Details