Person committing offence under Motor Vehicles Act can also be booked under IPC: Supreme Court
New Delhi: A person committing offences under the Motor Vehicles Act like overspeeding and rash driving can also be booked under the Indian Penal Code as both the statutes "operate with full vigour, in their own independent spheres", the Supreme Court has said.
"With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities", it said.
A bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna set aside an order of the Gauhati High Court of December 22, 2008, which held that a person booked for over speeding, dangerously driving and other related offences under the MV Act cannot be prosecuted under the IPC.
"In our considered view the position of law is well -settled. This Court has consistently held that the MV Act,1988 is a complete code in itself in so far as motor vehicles are concerned," the bench said in a recent judgement.
"However, there is no bar under the MV Act or otherwise, to try and prosecute offences under the IPC for an offence relating to motor vehicle accidents. On this ground as well, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside," it said.
The top court said the ingredients of offences under the both statutes are different and an offender can be tried and punished independently under both of them.
"The principle that the special law should prevail over the general law, has no application in cases of prosecution of offenders in road accidents under the IPC and MV Act," it said.
Justice Malhotra, who penned the verdict for the bench, said, "In our view there is no conflict between the provisions of the IPC and the MV Act. Both the statutes operate in entirely different spheres. The offences provided under both the statutes are separate and distinct from each other. The penal consequences provided under both the statutes are also independent and distinct from each other".
Dealing with the offences, the bench said there are no provisions under the MV Act which separately deal with offences causing death, or grievous hurt, or hurt by a motor vehicle in cases of motor vehicle accidents.
"Chapter XIII of the MV Act is silent about the act of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, or hurt, or grievous hurt, to persons nor does it prescribe any separate punishment for the same; whereas Sections 279, 304 Part II, 304A, 337 and 338 of the IPC have been specifically framed to deal with such offences," it said.
Offences under Chapter XIII of the MV Act are compoundable in nature whereas offences under Section 279, 304 Part II and 304A IPC are not, it added.
"If the IPC gives way to the MV Act, and the provisions of CrPC succumb to the provisions of the MV Act as held by the High Court, then even cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death, or grievous hurt, or simple hurt by rash and negligent driving, would become compoundable. Such an interpretation would have the consequence of letting an offender get away with a fine by pleading guilty, without having to face any prosecution for the offence committed," the bench said.
The principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment has to be borne in mind and the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence, it said.
"This Court has time and again emphasised on the need to strictly punish offenders responsible for causing motor vehicle accidents. With rapidly increasing motorisation, India is facing an increasing burden of road traffic injuries and fatalities. The financial loss, emotional and social trauma caused to a family on losing a bread winner, or any other member of the family, or incapacitation of the victim cannot be quantified", it said.
The bench said it is well settled that an act or an omission can constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time, be an offence under any other law.
"The finding of the High Court that the prosecution of offenders under two statutes i.e. the MV Act and the IPC, is unsustainable and contrary to law, is therefore, set aside," it said.
The top court said the maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under Chapter XIII of the MV Act, is up to only six months, whereas the maximum imprisonment for a first time offence under the IPC in relation to road traffic offences can go up to 10 years under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
"The sentence imposed by courts should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and should have a deterring effect on wrongdoers. The punishment of offenders of motor vehicle accidents under the IPC is stricter and proportionate to the offence committed, as compared with the MV Act," it said, adding that even assuming that some of the provisions of the MV Act and IPC are overlapping, it cannot be said that the offences under both the statutes are incompatible.
The top court also set aside the direction of the Gauhati High Court, which has asked Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh to issue appropriate instructions to their subordinate officers to prosecute offenders in motor vehicle accidents only under the provisions of the MV Act, 1988 and not the IPC.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
