Supreme Court Directs States to Freeze Vehicle Services, Impound Vehicles Over Unpaid E-Challans

The Court set out service restrictions and random-check impounding measures to recover unpaid traffic fines.

What Happened

The Supreme Court has directed States, Union Territories and the authorities concerned to strengthen recovery of unpaid e-challans through restrictions on vehicle services and impounding during random checks.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan passed the order on 28 September 2026 in the continuing road-safety case S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India. LiveLaw reported the written directions on 1 October.

The Court’s central concern was recovery: issuing large numbers of e-challans is insufficient unless authorities collect the fines. It noted that challans ordinarily go to the territorial court for payment, with e-courts also available, and emphasised measures that work at ground level.

For vehicles with outstanding amounts, the order sets out the following measures:

• Freeze online vehicle services.
• Bar registration certificate renewals, duplicate certificates and requests such as updating the owner’s address.
• Deny fitness certificates until all pending traffic fines are cleared.
• Blacklist vehicles on the Parivahan portal and block ownership transfers.
• For multiple violations, prevent driving licence renewal and take measures to suspend licences already in force.
• Prevent centres from issuing Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates.

The Court separately directed random vehicle checks and necessary steps to impound vehicles where an issued e-challan has not been honoured.

According to figures placed before the Court by the amicus curiae and applicant K.C. Jain, approximately ₹49,194.05 crore was recoverable through e-challans issued over time, of which ₹26,175.05 crore had been recovered. The difference is approximately ₹23,019 crore, calculated from those figures rather than separately stated by the Court.

Background & Context

The proceedings arise from a road-safety public interest litigation filed in 2012 by Coimbatore-based orthopaedic surgeon S. Rajaseekaran. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal assists the Court as amicus curiae.

The bench also questioned whether its earlier directions were producing results. It warned that continued non-implementation could lead to stern action and asked the amicus for a chart recording directions, dates, implementation timelines, compliance status and remarks.

The electronic enforcement framework rests on Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires State Governments to ensure electronic road-safety monitoring and enforcement on specified roads. It also requires the Central Government to frame rules governing the technology used. Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides the corresponding framework.

In the same application, the Court directed immediate implementation of MoRTH’s SOP dated 28 October 2025. States and UTs must notify enforcement sites and finalise device procurement, deployment and calibration. MoRTH must submit a compliance affidavit with a specific timeline, while the National Road Safety Board must monitor electronic enforcement.

Join Lexibal’s WhatsApp Community for latest updates.

Key Details

• The case is Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295/2012, with the e-enforcement directions arising in IA No. 33035/2021.
• The order is dated 28 September 2026 and addresses States, Union Territories and the authorities concerned.
• The framework includes Section 136A, Rule 167A and Section 215B, concerning the National Road Safety Board.
• The Court also drew attention to amended Rule 21(25), as cited in the order, concerning five or more offences or contraventions within a one-year period commencing from 1 January 2026. This was a reference to an existing rule, rather than a newly issued direction.

Why It Matters

The order connects fine recovery with services ordinarily needed to maintain, certify or transfer a vehicle. Its focus extends beyond detecting violations to securing payment and checking whether earlier directions have been implemented.

For law students and practitioners, the proceedings illustrate continuing judicial supervision of an existing statutory road-safety framework. The requested compliance chart makes implementation itself an issue for further scrutiny.

The recovery directions are addressed to authorities. Their practical operation for vehicle owners depends on implementation; the order alone does not establish that every listed restriction is already operating nationwide.

The written order specifies no deadline for these recovery measures and does not explain how disputed challans, challans under challenge or those pending before courts should be treated. It also gives no payment window or next hearing date. Those limits should remain distinct from the directions actually issued.

Closing

The interim order places recovery and implementation at the centre of the continuing road-safety proceedings. Further compliance remains subject to the Court’s monitoring.