The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting proper breath and blood tests to establish the offence of drunken driving and the need for a zero-tolerance policy towards drunk driving.

1. Rule has been already issued in this Public Interest Litigation and the same is pending for final disposal. This Public Interest Litigation has appeared on board from time to time under the caption of “Directions” for reporting compliance by the Union of India with the directions issued earlier. The occasion for filing the present Public Interest Litigation is an incident of the early morning of 28th November 2002 in Mumbai in which the Fourth Respondent, who is a popular Hindi Cinestar, was allegedly involved. During the pendency of this Petition, he was convicted by the Court of Sessions for various offences including those punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V.Act”). It is alleged that he was found driving a car while he was under the influence of alcohol.

2. The order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court was set aside by learned Single Judge of this Court, Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2015 decided on 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th December 2015. Today, the learned Government Pleader on instructions states that the State Government has taken a decision to immediately prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court for challenging the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court. He states that the Special Leave Petition will be filed in January 2016. In view of this statement, for the time being, we are not considering the implications of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the said judgment and order about the major defects in the investigation. Nevertheless, appropriate interim directions will have to be issued considering the fact that in the recent past, there have been large number of cases involving violation of Section 185 of the M.V. Act. During last few years there have been number of cases of accidents involving motor vehicles driven by persons who were under the influence of alcohol and who were guilty of violation of clause (a) of Section 185 of the M.V.Act.

3. The Apex Court has dealt with the issue of drunken driving in several cases. Recently, in the case of State Through P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, (2012)8 SCC 450. In paragraph 86, the Apex Court has succinctly noted the issue involved which reads thus:

“86. Drunken driving has become a menace to our society. Everyday drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving. Alcohol consumption impairs consciousness and vision and it becomes impossible to judge accurately how far away the objects are. When depth perception deteriorates, eye muscles lose their precision causing inability to focus on the objects. Further, in more unfavourable conditions like fog, mist, rain etc., whether it is night or day, it can reduce the visibility of an object to the point of being below the limit of discernibility. In short, alcohol leads to loss of coordination, poor judgment, slowing down of reflexes and distortion of vision.”

4. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs is made punishable under Section 185 of the M.V. Act. Section 185, which reads thus:

“185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.—Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,

[(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or]

(b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle,

shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a