Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019 has come into force. Government expects the higher fines to be a stronger deterrent for road users breaking the rules.
Before this, Road Transport and Safety Bill, 2014 was passed providing a framework for safer, faster, cost-effective and inclusive movement of passengers and freight in India.
The bill was subsequently replaced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill. The bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on April 2017 and sent to the Rajya Sabha, which referred it to a select committee in August 2017. The bill was again scrutinized by a joint standing committee composed of Transport ministers of 18 states of India. The bill has lapsed at the end of the last session of 16th Lok Sabha.
The bill was re-introduced in the first session of 17th Lok Sabha by union transport minister Nitin Gadkari which is then passed by both the houses before the end of the session.
As per the official notification issued by the central government on 28th August, 2019, the 63 clauses of the act to be implemented from 1st of September, 2019 as these clauses do not need any further modifications in the Central Motor Vehicles rules, 1989. These includes higher penalties for various traffic offences, national transportation policy among others.
A list of some of the new fines are below:
|Section under 1988 Act||Description||Old penalty/provision||New penalty/provision|
|181||Driving without license||Rs 500||Rs 5,000|
|182||Driving despite disqualification||Rs 500||Rs 10,000|
|183||Over speeding||Rs 400||Rs 1,000-2,000 (light motor vehicle) Rs 2,000-4,000 (medium passenger vehicle)|
|184||Dangerous driving||Rs 1,000||Imprisonment of 6 months-1 year and/or fine of Rs 1,000-5,000 for first offence. Imprisonment up to 2 years and/or fine up to Rs 10,000 for second offence.|
|185||Drunk driving||Rs 2,000||Imprisonment up to 6 months and/or fine up to Rs 10,000 for first offence. Imprisonment up to 2 years and/or fine of Rs 15,000 for second offence.|
|189||Racing||Rs 500||Imprisonment of up to 1 month and/or fine up to Rs 500 for first offence. Imprisonment up to 1month and/or fine up to Rs 10,000 for second offence.|
|194A||Overloading||Rs 1,000 per extra passenger|
|194B||No seatbelt||Rs 100||Rs 1,000|
|194C||Overloading two-wheeler||Rs 100||Rs 2,000; license disqualification for 3 months|
|194D||No helmet||Rs 100||Rs 1000; license disqualification for 3 months|
|194E||Not providing way to emergency vehicle||Rs 10,000|
|196||Driving without insurance||Rs 1,000||Rs 1,000-2,000 and/or punishment up to 3 months for first offence. Rs 4000 and/or imprisonment up to 3 months for second offence|
|198||Failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance||Up to Rs 1 lakh|
|199||Offences by juveniles||Guardian/vehicle owner deemed guilty – Rs 25,000 with 3 years imprisonment. Vehicle registration cancelled for 12 months. Juvenile ineligible to obtain license until the age of 25 years.|
|210B||Offenses committed by enforcing agencies||Double of applicable penalty|
Presumption That Wife Not Seen For Seven Years Is Dead, Husband To First Approach Civil Court For Declaration
Facts:The petitioner-Railway Authority has issued Articles of Charge alleging that the respondent-employee has contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage. The Enquiry Officer has gone into and submitted a report to the extent that the respondent has committed an act of bigamy during the subsistence of the first marriage. Upon considering the enquiry report, the Authority has imposed a punishment of reduction of pension by 50% for a period of five years.
The same was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by its order dated 10th October 2018 quashed the order of punishment. Against the same, this appeal is preferred by the Employer-Railway.
Held:The Karnataka High Court held that Bigamy by government servant is misconduct and that there is no scope for presumption that wife would be dead, in case if she is not seen for about seven years.
For the purpose of the said presumption law provides that the husband has to approach the civil court seeking declaration that his wife is dead. In the case at hand, instead of approaching the civil court and obtaining decree, respondent presumed that wife must have died and contracted second marriage, which amounts to misconduct as per service rules and was held liable for 50 percent reduction in pension amount.
Second Bail Application Maintainable Before Sessions Court After Withdrawal Of First One Filed Before High Court“
The Supreme Court held that view taken by High Court by passing the impugned order, is without application of its mind, by revoking the bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017, on the ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application. It may be mentioned in this connection that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or law laid down by this Court that once an accused has withdrawn his bail application before the High Court, he cannot file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court and that his subsequent bail application would lie before the High Court only.
An accused after withdrawing his bail application before the High Court can file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court, the Supreme has held.
HC Can’t Modify/Relax Instructions Issued By Public Service Commission: Held by SC
Facts: G. Hemalathaa, an advocate, applied to the posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. After clearing preliminary exams, she qualified for the written test conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. She had underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper-1. As such marking was in violation of Instruction issued by the Commission prohibiting candidates from using a pencil for any purpose, she was disqualified.
Held:The Supreme Court recently observed that instructions issued by the
Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory and to be strictly
complied with and the High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions. “Strict
adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount