Impaired Driving Penalties

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Impaired driving refers to operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any substance that affects driving ability. In India, it is primarily regulated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases involving accidents, injuries, or deaths.

1. Legal Framework

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Section 185(1): No person shall drive a motor vehicle if under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent that driving is unsafe.

Section 185(2): Limits blood alcohol content (BAC) to 0.03% for drivers of cars and 0.0% for commercial vehicles.

Penalties for first offence:

Fine: ₹2,000

Suspension of license: up to 6 months

Repeat offences:

Fine: ₹5,000 or more

Imprisonment: up to 6 months

License suspension for longer periods

Indian Penal Code

Section 279: Rash or negligent driving.

Section 304A: Causing death by rash or negligent driving (imprisonment up to 2 years, fine, or both).

Section 337–338: Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash driving.

Aggravating Factors in Impaired Driving

Excessive BAC

Repeat offences

Accidents causing serious injury or death

Driving at high speed or reckless manner

Driving commercial vehicles

Mitigating Factors

First-time offence

Remorse and cooperation with authorities

Accidental minor impact without injury

Participation in remedial programs (e.g., alcohol rehab)

2. Landmark Case Law on Impaired Driving

CASE 1: State of Karnataka v. Mahadeva (1992)

Facts:

Accused drove under the influence of alcohol and caused an accident resulting in death.

Court’s ruling:

Held that driving under intoxication is a gross negligence and a criminal offence.

Applied Section 304A IPC for causing death by rash driving.

Court emphasized social deterrence – impaired driving endangers public life.

Imposed imprisonment and fine.

Significance:

Established that drunk driving leading to fatal accidents attracts criminal liability, not just fines under MV Act.

CASE 2: Ramesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (2001)

Facts:

Driver involved in an accident with multiple casualties; intoxication confirmed via breathalyzer.

Court’s ruling:

Held that higher BAC, reckless behaviour, and multiple casualties are aggravating factors.

The accused was given imprisonment of 2 years and a fine under Section 304A IPC.

Highlighted that courts may consider both MV Act penalties and IPC criminal liability concurrently.

Significance:

Clarified that penalties under the MV Act are separate from IPC prosecution.

Reinforced deterrence by increasing punishment for accidents caused under intoxication.

CASE 3: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (2003)

Facts:

Accused was a repeat offender driving under influence; involved in a minor accident.

Court’s ruling:

Emphasized repeat offenders should face stricter penalties.

License revoked for 1 year, fine increased.

Court recognized that rehabilitation programs could be mitigating, but repeat violation reduces weight of mitigation.

Significance:

Introduced concept of repeat offender aggravation in Indian impaired driving law.

CASE 4: Surendra Singh v. State of UP (2005)

Facts:

Accused drove commercial vehicle under influence, causing serious injury to passengers.

Court’s ruling:

Commercial vehicle drivers held to higher standard of care.

Penalty increased under Section 279, 337 IPC and MV Act.

Emphasized: BAC limit stricter for professional drivers (0.0%).

Court cited public safety and professional responsibility as aggravating factors.

Significance:

Set precedent for harsher punishment for professional/commercial drivers.

CASE 5: Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana (2007)

Facts:

Accused involved in night-time accident while intoxicated, minor injuries only.

Court’s ruling:

Recognized mitigating factors: first-time offender, minor injuries, remorseful conduct.

Penalty: small fine and license suspension rather than imprisonment.

Court stressed balancing public deterrence with offender rehabilitation.

Significance:

Illustrated that courts can mitigate penalties when consequences are minor and offender shows genuine remorse.

CASE 6: Anil Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2010)

Facts:

Multiple fatalities in accident caused by intoxicated driver.

Court’s ruling:

Court imposed maximum sentences under MV Act and IPC.

Court highlighted:

Level of intoxication

Speed at time of accident

Number of victims

Stated: “Gross negligence while driving under influence is equivalent to taking lives.”

Significance:

Reinforced that serious consequences amplify penalties, combining criminal and civil liability.

CASE 7: Deepak v. State of Punjab (2015)

Facts:

Accused fled the scene after driving under influence; minor injuries to pedestrian.

Court’s ruling:

Aggravating factors: fleeing scene, violation of legal duty to assist victims.

Court increased fine and suspended license longer.

Court emphasized that failure to take responsibility increases culpability.

Significance:

Introduced fleeing or evading accountability as aggravating factor in sentencing.

3. Summary Table of Penalties Based on Case Law

Offence Type	Relevant Law	Typical Penalty	Aggravating Factors	Mitigating Factors
Driving under influence (no accident)	MV Act Sec 185	Fine ₹2k–5k, license suspension	Repeat offence, commercial driver	First-time, minor BAC
Drunk driving causing injury	IPC Sec 337	Imprisonment 6 months + fine	Serious injury, BAC high	Minor injury, remorse
Drunk driving causing death	IPC Sec 304A	Imprisonment up to 2 yrs + fine	Multiple deaths, gross negligence	Minor negligence, first-time
Commercial vehicle drunk driving	MV Act + IPC	License revocation, higher fine	Professional responsibility, multiple passengers	Minor consequence, cooperation
Repeat offender	MV Act + IPC	Higher fine, longer suspension	Repeat offence	Remorse, rehab programs