The Supreme Court on Monday suggested that States and Union Territories should consider linking unpaid traffic challans to electricity bills as a way of recovering outstanding fines (S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.).
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan made the suggestion while hearing a plea concerning the electronic enforcement of traffic violations and recovery of unpaid e-challan fines.
Justice Pardiwala held that the authorities needed to look beyond merely issuing e-challans, and should focus on recovering the fines.
“It is not just sufficient to keep issuing e-challans. Police may issue thousands and lakhs of such e-challans. Question is recovery of fines as sought to be imposed by way of the e-challans,” said Justice Pardiwala.
The Court then suggested that unpaid traffic fines could be added to electricity dues so that defaulters would have an additional incentive to clear them.
“If people are not paying traffic challans, add it to their electricity dues bill. They’ll have to pay electricity bills else power line will be disconnected. Work it out. In this country, you have to find a way out,” said the Court.
The suggestion came after the Court was informed that States and Union Territories have to recover around ₹45,000 crore towards e-challans, of which approximately ₹25,000 crore has been recovered so far.
Against this backdrop, the Court discussed a range of measures that could be adopted to ensure recovery of unpaid e-challan fines.
These included preventing the renewal of registration certificates, issuance of duplicate certificates and changes in ownership details until all outstanding challans were cleared.
The Court also suggested blacklisting vehicles with unpaid challans on the Parivahan portal and blocking ownership transfers. It further discussed withholding fitness and Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates for such vehicles, as well as preventing renewal of driving licences and taking steps to suspend licences already in force.
Emphasising that these measures should be effective on the ground, Justice Pardiwala said,
“The authorities need to work at the ground level having regard to ground realities.”
Additionally, the Court also suggested random checks of vehicles to identify those against which e-challans remained unpaid.
“Let there be random checking of vehicles and if found that e-challan has not been honoured necessary steps to be taken to impound the vehicle itself,” said the Court.
The suggestions were made while hearing an application seeking directions for the implementation of electronic enforcement mechanisms under Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The application was heard as part of a long-running public interest litigation petition on road safety filed in 2012 by Coimbatore-based orthopaedic surgeon S Rajaseekaran. The petition seeks coordinated measures to reduce road accidents and improve infrastructure and post-accident care.
Over the years, the Court has passed several directions in the matter concerning road safety and enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In August 2025, the Court said it would also consider issuing directions for the creation of portals to facilitate payment of compensation to victims of road accidents.
In October last year, the Court had ordered all States and Union Territories to frame rules to ensure pedestrian safety and regulate the movement of non-motorised vehicles such as cycles and hand carts in public spaces.
More recently,
in May this year, the Court directed States and UTs to strictly implement Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which requires public service vehicles to be equipped with vehicle location tracking devices (VLTDs) and emergency/panic buttons.
It also directed that no public service vehicle be granted a fitness certificate or transport permit unless the required devices were installed.
The Court further directed States to retrofit these devices in existing public service vehicles and integrate their installation and functionality with the Vahan database.
In the broader proceedings, the Court questioned whether its directions over nearly 14 years have translated into results on the ground.
“We want to know from the learned amicus (Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal) as to what is the position that the ground level we will keep issuing directions for an indefinite period of time, but if all these directions are going to remain on paper and are not going to be implemented by the authorities, then one fine day we may have to take some stern action which may not be liked by the authorities,” asked the Court.
The Court accordingly asked the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, to prepare a chart setting out the directions issued, the time given for implementation, their current status and the amicus' remarks.
