Gurugram Crash and the Uncommenced Section 106(2) BNS: A Legislative Defect

Resources for this Article

Download PDF Print-ready A4 notes · Free

The Lift Line

Whether the victim dies should affect the punishment, not whether the flight is a crime.

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

Criminal-law questions are usually answered as a rights-in-conflict question (GS2). The stronger answer notices that a Parliament-enacted provision can remain uncommenced for years, and that a statute must be read as a system, not as a menu.

GS Paper 2: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors; issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Concept	Meaning	Why it is testable
BNS 106(2)	Death by negligent driving plus flight; up to ten years	The uncommenced provision
Uncommenced provision	Enacted but not brought into force by notification	The doctrinal question
Section 109 BNS	Attempt to murder	The intent threshold
Section 161 MV Act	Statutory definition of ‘hit and run motor accident’	The narrower usage
Section 134 MV Act	Driver’s post-accident duty to secure medical attention and report	The regulatory obligation

Central Argument

Shubham Kumar, a constitutional lawyer with Crashfree India, argues that Section 106(2) BNS was left out when the rest of the code, enacted in December 2023, came into force on 1 July 2024, and even if enforced, would not cover the case where the victim survives with grievous injuries. The Gurugram crash brings both problems into a single frame.

Supporting Details

Gurugram Police took suo motu cognisance and registered an FIR under Section 125 BNS (grievous hurt by negligent act under 125(b): up to three years) and Section 281 BNS (rash or negligent driving; up to six months). After reviewing the footage and recording the rider’s statement, the police added Sections 78 and 79 (stalking; gestures insulting a woman’s modesty) and Section 109 BNS (attempt to murder). Section 106(2) could not apply: it is uncommenced, and it covers only cases where death is caused, while the rider here survived. The Motor Vehicles Act uses ‘hit and run’ more narrowly (Section 161) than everyday usage; Sections 134 and 187 impose and penalise the post-crash duties but do not fully capture the culpability of grievous injury plus flight.

The Counter-View

The author anticipates the obvious objection that this case may turn out to be deliberate violence rather than negligence. He accepts that the eventual charge will depend on that finding, and that resulting harm must affect punishment. His answer is that the defect exists regardless of how this case is classified: two equally negligent drivers who make the same decision to flee are treated differently only because one victim died.

Way Forward

The author’s call:

• Enact a carefully framed offence covering grievous injury followed by a knowing failure to stop, assist or report.
• Distinguish between a driver who leaves to obtain help and one who escapes to avoid responsibility, in the statutory drafting.

For the aspirant: Section 106(2) itself remains unnotified; in July 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking its enforcement.

📌 Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (enacted in December 2023) replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was brought into force on 1 July 2024; Section 106(2) was excluded from the notification and remains uncommenced.
• Section 106(2) BNS: death by rash and negligent driving plus flight; up to ten years and a fine.
• Section 281 BNS: rash or negligent driving on a public road; up to six months, Rs 1,000 fine, or both.
• Section 125(b) BNS: grievous hurt by negligent act; up to three years, Rs 10,000 fine, or both.
• Section 109 BNS: attempt to murder; non-bailable; up to ten years and a fine; where hurt is caused, up to life.
• Sections 78 and 79 BNS: stalking and gestures insulting a woman’s modesty.
• Section 161 Motor Vehicles Act: narrow statutory definition of ‘hit and run motor accident’.
• Section 134 MV Act: post-crash duty to secure medical attention and report; Section 187 penalises failure to comply.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Prelims-grade traps:

• ‘Hit and run’ in everyday usage is broader than Section 161 MV Act, which requires the vehicle’s identity to be indeterminable.
• Section 106(2) BNS is on the statute book but is not in force because it was excluded from the commencement notification.
• Enactment and commencement are distinct steps under Indian statutory law.
• Courts do not ordinarily compel commencement: in July 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking enforcement of Section 106(2).

Mains, arguments and keywords:

• Statutes as systems, not menus of stand-alone offences.
• Flight as separate culpability: it delays treatment, impedes identification and lets evidence disappear.
• The survivor gap: an aggravated offence for grievous injury plus flight is missing.
• Keywords: BNS 106(2), Section 281, Section 125(b), Section 109, Motor Vehicles Act 161, 134, 187.

Interview, be ready for:

• “Why is Section 106(2) BNS uncommenced?” It was excluded from the July 2024 commencement notification and remains unnotified; in July 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking its enforcement.
• “Should Section 109 BNS be used in negligent-driving cases?” Only where the evidence supports the intention or knowledge required for murder; the author notes that the victim’s survival does not by itself rule out the offence.
• “What is the survivor gap?” Where a driver causes grievous injury and flees but the victim survives, no equivalent aggravated offence exists in the BNS.

Source: Gurugram Crash and the Uncommenced Section 106(2) BNS: A Legislative Defect — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

Shubham Kumar argues in his Indian Express column that a legislative defect persists in India’s response to negligent driving followed by flight: Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was left out when the rest of the code, enacted in December 2023, came into force on 1 July 2024, and even if enforced, it would not cover the case where the victim survives with grievous injuries.

✓ Supporting

• Section 106(2) BNS punishes with up to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine the person who causes death by rash and negligent driving and escapes without reporting the incident soon afterwards.
• Section 281 BNS covers rash or negligent driving on a public road (up to six months, Rs 1,000 fine, or both).
• Section 125(b) BNS covers grievous hurt caused by negligent driving (up to three years, Rs 10,000 fine, or both).
• Section 109 BNS on attempt to murder is non-bailable and carries up to ten years and a fine; where the act causes hurt, punishment may extend to life.
• Sections 78 and 79 BNS address stalking and gestures intended to insult a woman’s modesty.
• Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act uses ‘hit and run motor accident’ narrowly, requiring that the vehicle’s identity cannot be established despite reasonable efforts.
• Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act imposes a duty to secure medical attention and report the accident; Section 187 penalises failure to comply.

⚠ Counter

The author accepts that the eventual charge in the Gurugram case will depend on whether the collision is found to be negligent or deliberate, and that resulting harm must affect punishment. His point is that the legislative defect exists regardless of how this case is classified.

→ Way Forward

Parliament should frame a new offence covering grievous injury followed by a knowing failure to stop, assist or report, distinguishing a driver who leaves to obtain help from one who escapes to avoid responsibility, so that a victim need not die before the driver’s flight becomes part of the principal crime.