HC restrains police from coercive collection of pending traffic challans

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice NV Shravan Kumar on Tuesday issued a directive while hearing two writs filed by V Raghavendra Chary of Tarnaka challenging the enforcement mechanism of the traffic police.

The court specifically ordered that the police must not stop motorists or use coercive measures, such as snatching of vehicle keys, to force immediate payment of pending traffic challans.

Justice Kumar clarified that while the citizens may choose to pay fines voluntarily, any enforcement action must strictly follow due process of law, including formal court notices.

The petitioner had moved the court to declare a specific challan issued on March 17, 2025, for “triple riding” as arbitrary and illegal, noting that fine of Rs 1,200 was imposed without specifying the provision violated.

Petitioner’s counsel Vijay Gopal argued that such penalties are contrary to Section 128 (read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) and Rule 167A(6) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. He contended that the police must issue challans in accordance with the 1988 Act rather than the 2019 amendments, as the State had not fully adopted the revised penalty structures.

The petitioner sought a direction for the police to rectify the e-challan system to ensure transparency and legal compliance.

In a broader challenge to traffic enforcement practices, he sought a declaration that the police lack authority to stop vehicle-users solely to clear pending arrears.

The petition emphasised the “separation of powers” doctrine, asserting that only a court has the mandate to decide the quantum of fines or imprisonment under Section 208 of the MV Act and the relevant Central Motor Vehicle Rules.

It argued that the police cannot compound offences involving imprisonment and must instead file a charge-sheet before a magistrate.

Additionally, the petitioner challenged use of unauthorised mobile devices for traffic enforcement and questioned legality of GO 108, which the police rely upon to force the citizens to pay pending fines, claiming it violates the “doctrine of repugnancy” by contradicting the Central MV Act.