Power to revoke licences used sparingly, Kerala HC expresses dissatisfaction at MVD inaction

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The Kerala High Court building in Ernakulam.

Despite statutory provisions in place, Motor Vehicles department authorities only disqualify or revoke licences sparingly, observed the Kerala High Court while deciding a bail application in a drunk driving case. 

“At a time when incidents of drunk driving continue to claim precious lives and leave families devastated, it is imperative that the authorities exercise the powers conferred under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) with the seriousness that the situation demands,” the court stated.

Justice Kauser Edappagath directed the Transport Commissioner to ensure that prompt and effective action is taken under the Act in cases of drunk driving, where a road accident is prima facie caused by the driver’s state of intoxication. The licensing authority should act swiftly and consider initiating proceedings to disqualify or revoke the driving licence involved. 

The court noted that instances of road traffic accidents due to drunk driving were a matter of serious and growing concern. Such incidents resulted in the loss of innumerable lives and leave families and communities irreparably affected, it stated.

The MV Act granted the licensing authority the power to disqualify or revoke a person from holding a driving licence, recognising the grave threat posed by drunk and reckless driving to public safety. The court held that the licensing authority could independently decide whether to disqualify or revoke a licence and it was not required to depend on a conviction by a criminal court. 

The court was considering the bail plea where the petitioner had allegedly hit a motorcycle while travelling on the Choondal-Kunnamkulam road. The breathalyser test recorded a blood alcohol concentration of 86 mg per 100 ml, whereas it should have been 30 mg.

The court granted bail as it observed that investigation was almost complete and his continued custodial interrogation was not required. However, it noted that the licensing authority had not proceeded against the petitioner. The investigating officer was directed to transmit the petitioner’s licence to the authority concerned, who should then proceed against him as per the MV Act.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.