Laws And Punishments For Drunk Driving In India
“Drink and drive” is a serious offence under Indian law due to the significant risk it poses to public safety. The practice involves operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which impairs judgment, reaction time, and motor skills, making it extremely dangerous for both the driver and others on the road.
Due to increasing urbanisation and rising affluence, the number of drunk driving incidents in India has surged, contributing to various legal consequences in hit-and-run offences in India. Driving under the influence (DUI) is considered a criminal offence under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, of 1988, which imposes penalties for such violations.
Legal Age of Drinking in India
In India, the legal age for drinking varies from 18 years to 25 years from state to state, while some states have completely banned alcohol such as Gujrat. For instance, states like Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and others have a legal drinking age of 18 years, and the drinking age in Maharashtra, Chandigarh, Meghalaya, and Punjab is 25 years
Punishments for Drunk Driving
Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act (“MVA”) penalises anyone driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle, with alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood or under the influence of drugs to the extent that they cannot control the vehicle. For a first offence, the punishment may include up to six months of imprisonment, a fine of ₹10,000, or both. For subsequent offenses, the imprisonment may extend to two years, a fine of ₹15,000, or both, similar to penalties for hit-and-run offences under Indian law.
Criteria for Establishing Intoxication/Drug Impairment while driving
According to Section 185 of the MVA, a person is said to be intoxicated when he has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a Breathalyzer. A Breathalyzer is a Breath Alcohol Testing Device which provides a non-invasive technique for estimating the Blood Alcohol Concentration “BAC” with great accuracy.
As per Section 203 of the MVA, police officers in uniform can demand a breath test if they suspect a person driving under the influence. If a person refuses, the officer is authorized to arrest them without a warrant.
The same section covers intoxication due to drugs, referring to any intoxicant other than alcohol, including narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985.
Consequences of Refusing a Breath Test
If a driver refuses to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test, it can result in immediate arrest. Courts may presume intoxication if the driver refuses to test, leading to charges and penalties as if they had failed the test. In addition to criminal penalties, the driver’s license may be suspended or revoked on the spot for non-compliance.
License Suspension and Revocation
A drunk driving conviction typically results in the suspension of the driver’s license:
- First-Time Offenders: A suspension of six months is common.
- Repeat Offenders: Repeated violations can result in longer suspensions or even permanent revocation of the license.
Impact on Employment and Criminal Record
A drunk driving conviction can have severe repercussions beyond fines and imprisonment, especially concerning employment and career prospects. Many employers, especially those in transportation, law enforcement, and professional services, perform background checks:
- A conviction can jeopardize employment opportunities and professional licenses.
- A DUI conviction remains on the person’s criminal record, affecting future background checks for jobs, travel visas, and even housing applications.
Driver’s Education and Remedial Programs
In some jurisdictions, courts may require convicted individuals to undergo driver’s education programs or attend alcohol rehabilitation sessions as part of their sentence. Successfully completing these programs can occasionally lead to reduced penalties or offer the possibility of early reinstatement of driving privileges.
Comparative Punishments for Drunk Driving Globally
The punishment for drunk driving in India is comparatively less severe than in other countries, although the Indian legal system treats drunk driving cases with significant scrutiny. For instance:
- In Australia, causing death by drunk driving can result in up to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- In the United States, Japan, and South Africa, the maximum sentence is 15 years.
- In the United Kingdom, it is 14 years, and in Canada, France, and Singapore, it is 10 years.
Punishment for Driving Under Influence in India
If drunk driving leads to fatalities, the accused can be charged under Section 106 of the BNS, 2023, which deals with causing death by rash or negligent acts. The punishment includes imprisonment of up to five years and a fine.
Additionally, Section 281 penalizes driving in a rash or negligent manner, endangering human life, with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to ₹1,000, or both.
Is Drinking a Fundamental Right in India?
In India, drinking is not considered a fundamental right, as the Indian Constitution does not explicitly grant the right to consume alcohol. The regulation of alcohol consumption is a matter for individual states, each of which has its laws governing the sale, distribution, and consumption of alcohol.
The Kerala High Court in Anoop vs. the State of Kerala held that the right to alcoholic drink is not a fundamental right. The Kerala High Court in this case has rejected a challenge to the government’s liquor policy, ruling that laws restricting the consumption of alcohol do not violate the fundamental rights of citizens.
The Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors[i]. held that the state has the authority to restrict the consumption of alcoholic beverages to improve public health.
Notable Judgements in Drunk Driving Cases
- State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department & Ors Vs K Balu & Anr, 2017
The Apex Court in this case came to the finding that no liquor shop could be situated within a distance of 500 meters of the outer edge of a national or State highway or of a service lane along the highway. The Court issued direction to The States and the Union Territories that no shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway.
The Apex Court in this case held that a drunken person is presumed to have the knowledge equivalent to that of a sober man. That Apex court stated that so far as knowledge is concerned the court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober but so far as intent or intention is concerned, the court must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication. If the man was beside his mind altogether for the time being, it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking and from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about the court will apply the rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.
- Manoj Kumar K. V. State of Kerala, 2020
The Kerala High Court bench in this case held that the held offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would be attracted only when alcohol content is detected through a breath analyser test or in any other test including a laboratory test. The prosecution allegation, in this case, was that the petitioner had driven his car in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and had dashed against another car, resulting in the driver and passenger of the other. Upon the medical examination report, the doctor opined that the petitioner smelled of alcohol. The petitioner was prosecuted solely on this basis. The court held that no test has been conducted in the present case so, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd.,2021
The Apex court in this case held that if a blood or breath test confirms no alcohol consumption, the insurer cannot invoke an exclusion for drunk driving. However, in the absence of such a test, the insurer is not barred from proving exclusion from liability based on drunk driving through other evidence. The court in this case stated that “The law does not prohibit driving after consuming liquor and all that is prohibited is that the percentage of liquor should not exceed 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood. Therefore, the understanding appears to be that only in circumstances, where the act of driving, having consumed liquor, attracts the wrath of Section 185 and an offence is committed thereunder, that the opprobrium of the Exclusion Clause in the Contract of Insurance, for own damage, is attracted.”. The Apex Court further held that, “The presence of alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood is not an indispensable requirement to enable an Insurer to successfully invoke the clause. What is required to be proved is driving by a person under the influence of alcohol. Drunken driving, a criminal offence, under Section 185 along with its objective criteria of the alcohol-blood level, is not the only way to prove that the person was under the influence of alcohol. If the Breath Analyser or any other test is not performed for any reason, the Insurer cannot be barred from proving his case otherwise.”
Conclusion
The legal consequences of drunk driving in India are severe, with courts taking a strict stance under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Convictions can lead to fines, imprisonment, and denial of insurance claims, affecting both personal and financial well-being. With increasing incidents of drunk driving. The Indian legal system continues to enforce measures to protect public safety while ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions, including provisions for victim compensation in hit-and-run cases.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[i] 1995 INSC 903
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was written and submitted by Akhil and you can reach out to the author at Akhil@bnblegal.com.
