Drunk Driving | Authorities Need Not Wait For Criminal Conviction To Suspend Or Revoke Driving Licence: Kerala High Court

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on Peethambaran T.R. v. Additional Licensing Authority and Sijo Joseph v. Transport Commissioner and Others and clarified that the Licensing Authority need not wait for criminal proceedings to end to invoke its statutory powers as per Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to disqualify a person from holding/obtaining a licence or to revoke the licence.

"The Licensing Authority may independently arrive at the requisite satisfaction on the materials available before it and pass an order of disqualification or revocation in accordance with law," it held.

The Court observed that the power to revoke/suspend licences is being used very sparingly even when instances of drunken driving have increased in the State:

“Despite these statutory provisions and judicial directives, it appears that the power of disqualification or revocation of driving licences under Section 19 of the MV Act is invoked only sparingly. Such reluctance undermines the legislative intent underlying the provision and diminishes its deterrent effect. At a time when incidents of drunken driving continue to claim precious lives and leave families devastated, it is imperative that the authorities exercise the powers conferred under Section 19 of the MV Act with the seriousness that the situation demands. Effective enforcement of the provision would not only serve the purpose of accountability but would also act as a powerful deterrent against irresponsible and dangerous conduct on public roads.”

The observations and direction were made while considering the regular bail application of a man accused of causing the death of a motorcyclist by driving his car in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol.

The Court granted him bail on conditions after noting that he had no antecedents and that his continued custodial detention was unnecessary. It directed the Investigating Officer to transmit the petitioner/accused's driving licence to the Licensing Authority concerned to take action as per Section 19(1).

While considering the plea, the Court adverted to the decisions of the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2014), Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India and Others as well as the High Court in Anoop v. State of Kerala (2019) on road safety.

In Rajaseekaran, directions were issued to all States and Union Territories to take action by suspending driving licences for at least three months in cases of: (i) overspeeding and red-light violations; (ii) overloading of goods carriages and carriage of passengers in goods vehicles; (iii) driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and (iv) use of mobile phones while driving. In Anoop, the High Court had held that the police officers and MVD officials can forward the licence of the offending driver to initiate action as per Section 19(1).

Taking note of these, the Court directed:

“In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Transport Commissioner to ensure, through the competent enforcement authorities of the Motor Vehicles Department, that prompt and effective action is taken under Section 19(1) of the MV Act read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules in appropriate cases involving drunken driving. In particular, where a road traffic accident is prima facie attributable to a driver's state of intoxication, the Licensing Authority shall examine the matter without delay and consider the initiation of proceedings for disqualification or revocation of the driving licence in accordance with law.”

The Court thus disposed of the plea.

Counsel for the petitioner: M.R. Sasith, M.R. Sarin, Muhammed Sulfikar, Parvathi Krishna, P. Santhoshkumar (Karumkulam), Reethu Jacob, Anjana Suresh E., Hasna Jabil, Ann Gini Roy, Venketesh S.P., Mahalekshmy P.S., Seethal P.S., R.K. Chirutha

Counsel for the respondent: Thomas Sabu Vadakkekut – Public Prosecutor