Traffic Challans Must Cite Legal Provisions: Telangana HC

Citing Section 167 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and other provisions, Justice N.V. Sharavan Kumar of the High Court noted that the details should be intimated to the violator. The judge directed the authorities concerned to upgrade the portal of e-challan system to reflect the relevant provisions, whereby citizens can verify status of the challans which specifies the provisions of the Acts and applicable rules and rates.

The court remarked that granting discounts to traffic violators not only weakened the fear of legal consequences but also encouraged repeated violations and traffic indiscipline. The court was of the view that the matter required further examination.

Justice Shravan Kumar was dealing with a petition filed by V. Raghavendra Chary, resident of Tarnaka, who challenged a traffic challan issued through the Telangana Police Integrated E-Challan System. The petitioner questioned the imposition of a total penalty of ₹1,235 — comprising ₹1,200 as fine and ₹35 as user charges — for triple riding on a two-wheeler, alleging that the challan did not disclose the specific legal provision under which the penalty was imposed.

The petitioner contended that violations relating to triple-riding were governed by Section 128 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the penalty ranged between ₹100 and ₹300. It was argued that the authorities could not rely on the 2019 amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act since Telangana had not adopted them. The petitioner relied on Rule 167 and Rule 167-A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which mandate that challans must specify the provision of law violated.

Government counsel informed the court that the petitioner’s case fell under the category of driving dangerously and as per Section 184 of the MV Act, the fine amount prescribed was 1,000.

The petitioner argued that the provision pertained to dangerous driving and had no application to triple riding. The petitioner alleged that lack of legal clarity in challans burdened citizens financially and reduced transparency.

Government counsel submitted that offences under the MV Act were compoundable under Section 200 and that the state was empowered to prescribe fine amounts through notification. He cited GO Ms No. 54 (2006) and GO Ms No. 108 (2011), issued in the context of traffic safety measures, and argued that the present violation fell under the category of dangerous driving, attracting a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 184. He also stated that the e-challan portal lacked the capacity to display legal provisions but efforts were underway to upgrade the system.

The court noted that the challan issued in the present case did not mention the provision of law violated, contrary to Rule 167-A. Even assuming applicability of Section 184, the court observed that the fine prescribed was ₹1,000, not ₹1,200.

Finding that the matter required further examination, the court directed the Telangana police and Hyderabad traffic police to file a counter affidavit and asked the petitioner to verify whether legal provisions were being incorporated into the upgraded e-challan portal. The matter was adjourned to December 9.