HC Questions Traffic Police Practice in Issuing Challans
The court also questioned the absence of details regarding the equipment used to record the alleged traffic violations, following which the State sought time to file a detailed reply
Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court has sought a comprehensive counter affidavit from the State in two writ petitions challenging the procedure followed by the Hyderabad Traffic Police in issuing traffic challans. The Government Pleader for Home was directed to place a detailed response on record within one week, and the matters were posted to December 23, 2025, for further hearing.
During the hearing of the first petition, counsel for the petitioner argued that Telangana has not implemented the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act introduced in 2019. It was contended that traffic violations are still being penalised under the unamended provisions of the Act and the relevant rules. The petitioner particularly referred to Section 128, which deals with safety requirements for drivers and pillion riders and does not independently prescribe a penalty. According to the petitioner, any violation of this provision could attract only the general penalty under Section 177, which prescribes a fine of ₹100 for a first offence and ₹300 for subsequent offences.
In response, the government pleader informed the court that the issue had been addressed and produced a revised integrated e-challan citing offences under Sections 127, 128 and 184 of the Act. However, the court noted inconsistencies in the document, observing that while the vehicle owner’s name was mentioned, the petitioner’s name was missing, and there was no clarity on the exact statutory provisions invoked. The court remarked that the rectification appeared incomplete and that confusion persisted in the e-challan system.
In the second petition, the challenge related to the practice of stopping motorists on the road to recover pending challans. The petitioner argued that offences punishable with imprisonment could not be compounded by the police and must be adjudicated by a Magistrate. While the State relied on a 2011 Government Order permitting compounding of offences, the petitioner maintained that offences under Section 184 were non-compoundable.
The court also questioned the absence of details regarding the equipment used to record the alleged traffic violations, following which the State sought time to file a detailed reply.
