Police Policy: Traffic Police: the Madras High Court Bench ruled, “FIR sufficient to suspend driving licence”

Mere registration of a First Information Report (FIR) by the police in a road accident case is sufficient to disqualify the driver involved from holding the driving licence for a specific period. It is not necessary on the part of Regional Transport Officer (RTO) concerned to wait until the guilt was proved in a court of law, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled.

Justice S. Manikumar passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by S. Govindarasu of Thanjavur. The petitioner had claimed that the RTO had no authority to suspend his driving licence until he was found guilty by a court of law. He also contended that the FIR was only a document enabling the police authorities to investigate into a crime and so it does not have any evidentiary value.

Disagreeing with the petitioner, the judge said: “No doubt, FIR is a document which sets the criminal law in motion for proceeding against the offender under the penal laws or under the penal provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. Yet, the same can be taken note of by the licensing authority for exercising powers under the Motor Vehicles Act and place restrictions on driving.”

On the other contention of the petitioner that the RTOs must conduct a detailed enquiry before suspending the driving licences, the judge said that permitting such an enquiry might lead to a disastrous consequence whereby the RTO might give a contrary finding to that of a court of law.

“The licensing authority cannot be allowed to usurp the powers of the court to record a finding regarding the guilt,” he added.

Mr. Justice Manikumar also stated that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act do not contemplate a regular enquiry, as that of a departmental enquiry, before suspending a driving licence. The Act only provides for giving an opportunity to the licence holder to explain his stand.

Therefore, “when the legislature has prescribed a procedure for suspension, courts cannot add or import new procedures,” he said.

The judge differed with a Division Bench judgment in P. Sethuraman Vs. The Licensing Authority (2010) wherein the court quashed an RTO's order suspending the driving licence of an individual. He pointed out that the Division Bench had not dealt with Section 19 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which empowers the licensing authority to order surrender of the driving licence.

Stating that public interest is the predominant consideration while taking appropriate action against drivers accused of causing death due to their rash and negligent driving, the judge recalled that the Supreme Court in Gauri Shankar Gaur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) had said: “The courts have a duty to construe the provisions of a statute to facilitate the day-to-day working of the statute to serve the public interest.”