Don’t turn challan collection into revenue drive: HC to traffic police

TheHC cautioned the traffic police against using coercive measures to recover pending challans and directed them to follow the procedure prescribed by law.

Justice Natcharaju Venkata Shravan Kumar heard three petitions filed by V Raghavendra Chary, a private employee from Tarnaka. Advocate Vijay Gopal appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate-General Mohammed Imran Khan represented the State.

One of the petitions was a contempt case alleging continued seizure of vehicles and original registration certificates (RCs), despite the HC directions issued on January 20, 2026, and subsequent orders of the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought action against officials under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The other two petitions challenge various aspects of traffic enforcement in Telangana. In WP 26655 of 2025, the petitioner questioned a Rs 1,200 challan issued for triple riding on a two-wheeler, contending that the challan did not specify the applicable provision of law and was contrary to the MV Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

The petitioner challenged the practice of stopping motorists to collect pending challans. He contended that questions relating to penalties and punishment should be dealt with by the competent court in accordance with the MV Act and rules. He questioned the use of mobile devices for issuing challans without the required approval and challenged a GO relating to compounding of traffic offences on the road.

During the hearing, Gopal referred to video footage and documents filed in the contempt case. He alleged that his vehicle had been seized for alleged offences including driving while using a mobile phone and failure to produce documents. He said the vehicle was released after about six hours, while the original RC continued to be retained.

Gopal argued that even where a traffic violation is alleged, seizing a vehicle and retaining original documents amounted to coercive action. He referred to body camera footage of a traffic police officer and submitted that the material would assist the court in examining the alleged violation of its earlier directions.

The court asked the counsel whether the incident was an isolated one. He replied that the contempt petition was based on the particular incident and that the video footage had been placed before the court.

The court observed that if there were isolated instances, they could be examined separately, but any large-scale practice contrary to its orders would require consideration. It emphasised that ordinary commuters should not be subjected to coercive action merely for the collection of fines.

The judge observed that motorists should be issued notices and, if they failed to pay the challan, should be required to approach the jurisdictional court. The court said the prescribed legal process must be followed and traffic enforcement should not turn into a “revenue drive”.

Gopal sought clarification on whether the police had the power to retain original vehicle documents. The court asked him to produce the relevant documents and said it would examine the issue. It observed that vehicles could be kept in safe custody where legally required, but authorities must act in accordance with the law. The AAG assured that the police would comply with its directions. The court indicated that any further violation of its orders would be taken up for consideration. During the hearing, Gopal raised the issue of children begging at traffic signals and in parts of Hyderabad, and sought the court’s attention to photographs showing children begging. The court observed that the issue was not directly connected with the petitions but said it would consider the material placed before it.

The case was adjourned by two weeks.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The Hans India