Published in Deccan Chronicle on June 18, 2008
Should the fine for drunken driving be raised from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 10,000? Should the jail sentence be increased from two years to ten? Why are fines in India a thousand times lower than elsewhere in the world for the same offences?
The overwhelming number of daily traffic violations - more major than minor - has prominently occupied newspaper columns and radio programmes. Commissioners of Police of diverse rank reel of disturbing statistics in desperation as the situation tail spins out of control.
Why am I writing about traffic violations on the environment page?
The answer goes thus...
Over the last few years we have had many inebriated gentleman from notable backgrounds and illustrious families in various parts of the country, indulge in the most outrageous acts of drunken driving. These cases have straddled newspaper columns and monopolised television headlines more for their sensationalism than for the gravity of the matter.
Days later the finest lawyers that money can buy are hired... weeks later the witnesses have been purchased and turn hostile...months later all is forgotten... the case trudges though the morass of the judicial system ... and of course the concerned gentleman is probably driving again. This sequence replicates itself ad nauseum in every case. These gentlemen certainly would not be deterred by Rs. 10,000 or ten times that, when they have the wherewithal to derail their prosecution.
The exchequer bears not only the costs – without taking into consideration the man hours - of attempting to prosecute this offender but if sentenced this same offender further drains the exchequer as a ‘guest of the state’ in some jail!
Furthermore on any given day, in any Indian city thousands of bikers – not to mention cars and truckers - are caught and instantly let off, after greasing the policeman's palm. Twenty rupees exempts them from gracing the portals of a magistrate's court – shared between the men in uniform on duty.
If they pay a fine and are receipted for it, then 75% goes to the government and 25% as service charges towards the policeman's unofficial ‘welfare’ fund.
It does not take rocket science to calculate the quantum of money being lost to the exchequer on a daily basis. So, what purpose does it serve to increase fines, increase sentences, when the very implementation is compromised? It only permits the corrupt policemen on duty to increase his percentage and still let off the offender.
So, let's go green with sentencing....
Firstly, we fine ten times the present amount for the first violation, 50% of which goes towards an environment fund and up to 25% to the policeman on duty! Ofcourse this commission is available to him only when the offender is brought before the magistrate. That is an incentive to prosecute effectively and ensure the system is not compromised.
For the second violation, the offender forgoes motorised transport - two or four wheeler - and has to opt for a cycle or, public transport only for a determined period. How soon that would ease the roads of traffic jams!
For more serious offences, there would be no need for bail, simply because the offender isn't going to jail. Instead, the sentencing must include volunteering for public service. For example, neighbourhood garbage collection in Basavangudi, managing compost pits in Cox Town, street cleaning in Koramangala and assisting the traffic police through the day Majestic!
Offenders for major violations should be deputed to the forest department -rather than house them in jails. Not only should they be planting trees but more importantly they must ensure the planted trees remain alive. In the event that the planted trees are neglected, the number of years spent with the forest department doubles.
Would these sentences not provide for effective and permanent deterrence? Not only will we resolve the problem of the understaffed and underpaid public departments but going by the scale of violations countrywide, we ought to have a have a cleaner, greener nation sooner rather than later.
Needless to say, my proposal might raise the hackles of many quarters for myriad reasons. If it is ill-conceived then I urge those more competent and with more expertise to better conceive my proposal.
Rather than shout it down or rubbish it instantly, I hope it provokes and encourages readers' minds to offer workable, practicable solutions to a multiplicity of everyday problems that require innovative solutions - not punishment, penalties and fines
Comments
J.A.P.