Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Road Safety (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/)

-   -   Court orders IIM grad to stand with “Don’t drink & drive” banner at traffic signal (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/290362-court-orders-iim-grad-stand-don-t-drink-drive-banner-traffic-signal.html)

The Bombay High Court has ordered an IIM graduate accused of driving in an inebriated condition to stand at a traffic junction with a “Don’t Drink and Drive” banner.



Sabyasachi Nishank was arrested in November 2024 for allegedly driving under the influence and ramming his vehicle at two police posts without stopping. The 32-year-old, who is an IIM Lucknow alumnus, was granted bail on a bond of Rs 1 lakh.

The court, though, has set another condition for his bail. Nishank would have to hold a flex banner measuring 4x3 feet in his hands with the words, “Don’t Drink and Drive.” He will have to stand at a busy traffic junction every weekend for 3 months.

Nishank will have to report to the traffic officer manning the signal at the Worli Naka junction, who shall then depute him to stand in a visibly well-lit place on the footpath facing the road for 3 hours every Saturday and Sunday for 3 months.

Source: HT

Link to Team-BHP News

Oh my! In my opinion this order by the Bombay High Court should be considered as a Landmark Judgement.

Not driving after drinking is common sense. But somehow people normalize driving after drinking behavior in India, especially in tier 2 and tier 3 cities where alternative cab and other ride-share services are not available.

We need judgments like these and more enforcement from police to inculcate the right behavior in people's minds. It should be normal to take alternative means of transport after drinking.

Its not just tier 2 and 3 cities, outside of Mumbai I've observed people in most tier 1 places too (Gurgaon/Hyderabad/etc) being more open to driving if they know which roads to take to avoid the cops, or in general open to driving just because they have only had a few beers.

Although I’m all in favour of not drinking whilst driving I am not so keen on this verdict. I also doubt to its effectiveness.

If you look at other parts of the world it took several generations of campaigning and new legislation to bring driving under influence down considerable.

It’s an interesting case, and I assume the public by and large might approve of it, but the question is whether it does anything on long term change in attitude towards drinking and driving. Rarely has any major attitude changes in attitude been achieved by oppressive and harsh punishment.

Drinking and driving is an attitude. As long as it is not frowned upon and simply not accepted in society harsh and silly punishments are not going to make a materials difference.

This particular guy would be less likely if his partner, family, friends and colleagues would all tell him he should not drink and drive. They should do so every time he did a d remind him the next day too!

A judge telling him, with a silly sentence like this, is likely to embarrass him, but will it change his behaviour? If he is an alcoholic it won’t. If he is part of an environment (friends, family, colleagues) that don’t confront him every time he drinks he ain’t going to change his behaviour. Those are fact and have been proven over and over again in societies around the world that tried to curb drinking and driving.

Unfortunately, many folks seem to be applauding these sort of verdicts. These days people look for what they call strong leadership and harsh actions. Never iever has anything complex been solved by simplistic people and simplistic and harsh measurements.

Drinking is a serious complex issue.

I don’t think tough sentencing never ever in any country or culture has been able to sort out any underlying causes.

Jeroen

I agree that it's the underlying attitude in the entire social circle that needs adjustment, its not easy to achieve it. You have yourself mentioned that it has taken decades in other societies.

This judgement bit has made news, and whoever reads this now gets the point that he cant just 'bypass' or 'bribe' out of drinking and driving which is the way of life of majority of indians, and that drinking and driving has consequences.

If it puts even a bit of caution in the minds of people, I think the first step - 'awareness of the issue' is addressed. Now, may be after enough people know that this is a silly mistake that has grave consequenses, it will be frowned upon by the society.

The good thing here is, the judge has not treated it like a crime and instead like a social mistake. Like peeing in public.. Its a start to get frowned upon.

Now.. If not this, what punishment or consequence was OK?

Minus the eyeball catching "IIM grad", I don't know what these decision makers smoke. There's a simple and straight forward law under Section-185 of MVA act 1988 and it's considered a criminal offence, I wish they could remove it from the bailable offence.

Doesn't matter you fine or not, but put these people behind bars for the duration and see the world of change, people have money these days to pay whatever fines, till then we will keep displaying meaningless banners (which he will laugh about in some years) or at times essay writing and the menace will never be eradicated. Let the guy spend some prison time in inhumane conditions of the prison and he will never even drink, forget about driving after that.

Education at early age and punishment at later age is the only way to go ahead for such social behavior changes in a broader purview. Remember no one dared to drink & drive in Mumbai few years back, because of strict enforcement of the law with jail time and fines, looks like things are back to same old poor habits.

I shudder to think a drunk driver mows down someone's loved one. :disappointed

Cancellation of DL for 1 year on the first instance and for lifetime on the second?

Though a landmark judgment it has somewhat of a facist element if read between the lines. It will deter the person from drunk driving, who was evidently nabbed with a higher than legal blood alcohol content (BAC). It is illegal to drive if the BAC is more than 0.03%. This legal limit is set at 30 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood or 0.03%.

The 2019 amendment to the Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act calls for a fine of Rs 10,000 or a six month jail sentence or both for the first offence. For consecutive offences, the penalty is Rs 15,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years. Also the traffic police with the RTO are empowered with suspension (for the first offence) and cancellation of driving licences ( for subsequent offences). We are not sure if this is the drunk driver's first or subsequent offence.

Hence, if a drunkard is nabbed, the Sec 185 enumerated punishments are adequate to tame the erring driver. Asking him to display the placard for 3 hours every Saturday and Sunday for 3 hours (after reporting to traffic cops) is perhaps humiliating but is a lighter punishment than a jail sentence plus suspension/ cancellation of his driving licence.

The honorable court’s verdict is commendable. Such humiliating punishments for individuals will likely serve as a strong deterrent, encouraging others to refrain from engaging in similar unlawful activities.

Remember, crime rates tend to be low in places where law and order are strictly enforced, and punishments are stringent.

I don't think a judge has the authority to give any sort of punishment to the public even if the IIM guy is definitely wrong here. If that's the case cops would have the right to beat anybody in the pretext of making society better.

Supporting this sort of human-rights violation punishments can actually make the country into a system where judges and Bureaucrats essentially "RULE" like kings. There should be rule of law rather than somebody acting like kings.

Now, a great punishment could be giving him a class or even in severe cases revoking his license.

Also, how many judges are arrested in India and given the same sort of punishment? I mean, how many judges are even arrested? I haven't seen many. Wrong judgements must be punished. As a country, it's very important to reach a system where we don't have an over arching judiciary.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ffs/370456001/

^ Now, that's what I call amazing.

Bengaluru has a rampant casual drink-and-drive problem. Every brewery, restobar, and regular bar filled with people driving in cars to drink, and they will drive home in them. These establishments are running out of places to park on the roads they are located in. Wallet parkings at Toit, Blr Brewing Company, Biergarten, and Byg Brewsky (these are the most popular ones) and more are the examples for this. 90% of cars will be self-driven as well. It is quite an insane and worrying trend.

shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine [of ten thousand rupees], or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, [***], with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine [of fifteen thousand rupees], or with both.

It does say "may" for extended imprisonment up to 6 months and then says "or' for a fine. I would have gone for some minimum imprisonment. Hope he was also fined ?

Since he was already driving nothing else happened, speculating what if something else would have happened is not right. If something had happened the penalty would have been severe too.

The point all of you missed is this, from the original article:

The man is not being punished just yet. The placard thing is his bail condition. Adding community service as a bail condition is somewhat prevalent in India. It does not mean the man is going to escape trial and if found guilty, sentencing under all the laws applicable and are listed in the quoted posts.

Yeh, unfortunately the same way writing an essay was the condition for maiming two innocent souls. Well, till we have such feeble implementation of laws on ground, and having corrupt people when the whole system gets biased towards the person with deep pockets, we are just doing the lip service and not any community service.

That's why I said in my post before, it should not be a bailable offence, when someone knowingly drives after drinking, sadly some flaws being in a democratic setup.