The countrywide truckers’ stir has been known as off as the federal government assured that it could seek the advice of stakeholders earlier than implementing a contentious regulation towards hit-and-run. After lengthy talks with the federal government, the All-India Motor Transport Congress known as off the agitation.

“We had a discussion with All India Motor Transport Congress representatives… the government wants to say that the new rule has not been implemented yet. We all want to say that before implementing Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita 106/2, we will have a discussion with All India Motor Transport Congress representatives and then only we will take a decision,” Union Home Secretary Ajay Bhalla stated this night.  

“The new laws have not been implemented. It will be implemented only after consultation with All India Transport Congress,” confirmed Bal Malkit, the chairman of the AIMTC’s core committee.

The protest was over the Section 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita or BNS — which is about to exchange the colonial-era Indian Penal Code — which had provisions for strict penalty in hit-and-run circumstances. The truckers had threatened to carry an all-India strike, triggering panic about scarcity of gasoline and important gadgets.

The protests had unfold throughout a number of states, together with Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, Punjab, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

Under the brand new regulation, hit-and-run circumstances can appeal to as much as 10 years in jail and a positive of Rs 7 lakh — towards the present penalty of as much as two-year jail time period and a lighter positive. The most punishment of 10 years will kick in the place the offender has brought about demise by way of rash driving and decamped with out reporting the matter to the police.  

The truckers, cab drivers and others working industrial autos are questioning how they’d pay such a steep positive in case they meet with an accident.

Experts have warned about the potential of misuse of the regulation, the method of informing authorities given the danger of public anger, and the character of proof that can be acceptable in case of a dispute.