The Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to block a range of online and vehicle-related services for motorists with outstanding traffic fines, including registration renewals, fitness and pollution-under-control certificates, ownership transfers and driving licence renewals. The court was informed that e-challans worth about ₹49,194.05 crore remained outstanding across the country, while ₹26,175.05 crore had been recovered so far.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan directed that vehicles with unpaid e-challans be blacklisted on the central Parivahan portal, effectively preventing their sale or transfer until the dues are cleared. In cases involving multiple traffic violations, the authorities have also been directed to withhold renewal of driving licences and take steps to suspend existing licences.
“What we want to convey in simple words is that the authorities need to work at the ground level, having regard to the ground realities… We also direct that let there be random checking of the vehicles, and if it is found that the e-challan issued has not been abided or honoured, necessary steps shall be taken to impound the vehicle itself,” the Bench said, in its September 28 order made public on Thursday (October 1, 2026).
The directions were issued in a road-safety case dating back to 2012, in which the top court has been monitoring the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for nearly 14 years.
Electronic enforcement
The Bench also called for greater use of technology in traffic enforcement, directing States and Union Territories to immediately implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on October 28, 2025. The SOP seeks to give effect to Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Under the framework, traffic violations are to be detected electronically through devices such as CCTV cameras, speed cameras and speed guns. State governments have been directed to identify and notify locations for electronic enforcement and complete the procurement, deployment and calibration of the necessary equipment.
To ensure transparency, the court also directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to set up a public dashboard showing how electronic traffic enforcement is being implemented across the country. It will carry monthly updates on enforcement locations, devices installed and their operational status, violations detected and e-challans generated.
Notice to Delhi Chief Secretary
The Bench also sought details of the steps taken by the Delhi government to comply with its September 15 directions on pedestrian safety along Mathura Road near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park.
Amicus curiae and senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal informed the court that he had written to the Delhi Chief Secretary on September 19 regarding compliance with the directions but had received no response. The earlier directions called for measures including functional pedestrian signals, synchronised traffic lights, speed-control measures and electronic enforcement along the stretch.
The Bench directed the Chief Secretary to file a compliance report, giving the administration further time to carry out the measures but warning that failure to do so would require his personal appearance at the next hearing.
“If our directions have not been complied with so far, the Chief Secretary still has some time to undertake the necessary action and do the needful, failing which he shall personally remain present before us on the next date of hearing,” the Bench ordered.
‘Stern action’
Noting that it had “devoted precious judicial time” to the case in the interest and safety of citizens, the top court also questioned whether the directions it had issued over the past year had produced results on the ground. It put what it described as an “unusual question” to the amicus curiae — whether the court’s efforts had actually yielded positive results.
The Bench has now asked the amicus to prepare a comprehensive chart of all directions issued in the case, recording the date of each direction, the time granted for compliance, its present status, and the amicus’s remarks. State governments have been asked to furnish the information sought by the amicus through interrogatories.
“We may keep issuing directions for an indefinite period of time, but if all these directions are going to remain on paper and ultimately 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,” the Bench cautioned.
Published – October 01, 2026 07:53 pm IST
