The New Criminal Law on Hit-and-Run: Reform or Overreach?

Written by: Mannat Kaur, 5th Year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), UPES Dehradun 

court.

Introduction

India’s criminal law has recently undergone a historic transformation with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). These statutes, which replaced the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act, came into force in July 2024.

While these reforms are wide-ranging—addressing terrorism, crimes against women, mob lynching, and digital offences—one provision has triggered intense public debate: Section 106 of the BNS, which criminalises hit-and-run incidents with unprecedented severity.

Understanding Section 106 of the BNS

Section 106 imposes liability on drivers who cause a road accident resulting in death and subsequently fail to report the incident to the authorities or flee from the scene.

The punishment prescribed is up to ten years of imprisonment or a fine extending to seven lakh rupees.

This marks a sharp departure from the earlier Section 304A of the IPC, under which rash or negligent driving causing death was punishable with two years imprisonment or fine.

The shift reflects an intention to prioritise victim protection and deter negligent driving by placing a legal duty on drivers to report accidents promptly.

Why the Law Sparked Controversy

The severity of punishment has divided opinion across sectors.

●      Transport Industry’s Concerns: India’s trucking sector, which handles nearly 70% of the nation’s freight, has strongly opposed the provision. Drivers fear stopping at accident sites due to the risk of mob violence, where bystanders often attack drivers in anger rather than waiting for police intervention. In their view, the new law criminalises fear-driven behaviour without offering protection.

●      Road Safety Advocates’ View: On the other hand, road safety activists defend the provision as a life-saving reform. India records over 1.5 lakh fatalities annually due to road accidents—the highest in the world. Many of these deaths occur because victims do not receive timely medical attention. By imposing strict liability, the law hopes to ensure faster reporting and quicker access to emergency care.

Constitutional and Human Rights Concerns

From a constitutional perspective, the law raises questions about proportionality. A ten-year prison sentence nearly equates the act of fleeing an accident site with the crime of culpable homicide, despite their distinct moral and legal dimensions.

The principle of proportional punishment—implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution—requires that penalties must be fair, just, and reasonable. Critics argue that the law may fail this test, especially in cases where a driver panics rather than willfully evades responsibility.

Moreover, the law does not adequately address the safety of drivers themselves, who may face physical harm if they remain at the scene in volatile conditions. Unlike several European countries, where Good Samaritan laws protect both victims and those who assist them, India’s new provision leans heavily towards punishment without equivalent safeguards.

Striking a Balance: The Way Forward

The core intention of Section 106—ensuring accountability and reducing fatalities—is beyond reproach. However, the challenge lies in ensuring that the law is not counterproductive.

For effective implementation, the following measures are crucial:

●      Strengthening Good Samaritan protections, so that both victims and drivers are safeguarded.

●      Launching awareness campaigns to reduce mob violence and encourage responsible public behaviour during accidents.

●      Training police and emergency services to respond swiftly, ensuring that accident reporting does not translate into harassment of drivers.

●      Establishing a graded punishment system, distinguishing between deliberate evasion and panic-driven flight.

Conclusion

The “hit-and-run law” under Section 106 of the BNS 2023 captures the dilemma at the heart of India’s criminal law reforms: the pursuit of deterrence versus the need for fairness.

While it represents a bold step towards prioritising victims’ rights and modernising India’s justice system, the law risks overreach unless accompanied by supportive safeguards and systemic reforms.

Ultimately, justice in a democratic society cannot be achieved solely through harsher penalties. It must also reflect social realities, constitutional values, and human dignity. Section 106 will be truly effective not when drivers fear punishment, but when they feel protected enough to do the right thing.