Observing that it is not enough to keep issuing e-challans unless the fines are recovered, the Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to impound vehicles with unpaid e-challans, to freeze their online services, deny fitness and PUC certificates and block ownership transfers, in the road safety case it has monitored for over a decade, after being told that about Rs 23,000 crore of e-challan fines is still to be recovered.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to take stringent measures to recover pending traffic fines, including impounding vehicles found in random checks to have unpaid e-challans, and freezing online services for vehicles with outstanding dues [S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan passed the directions on September 28, 2026 in W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012, the road safety petition that the Court has been monitoring for almost 14 years, with Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae. The order, on several interlocutory applications, was uploaded on October 1, 2026.
Rs 49,194 crore recoverable, Rs 26,175 crore recovered
The Court recorded that, according to the Amicus and an applicant appearing in person, the States and Union Territories have to recover about Rs 49,194.05 crore towards e-challans issued over time, of which about Rs 26,175.05 crore has so far been recovered, leaving about Rs 23,019 crore still to be recovered. It said that authorities need to work at the ground level, and told them plainly that issuing challans is only half the exercise:
“It is not just sufficient to keep issuing e-challans to the person who is alleged to have violated the provisions of the Act. Police may issue thousands and lakhs of such e-challans but the question is how do you recover the fine as sought to be imposed by way of those e-challans.”
The Court noted that, ordinarily, an e-challan is sent to the territorial court, where the person appears and pays the fine, including through e-courts. It held that this route alone would not be enough given the mounting number of challans, and ordered the following measures.
Impounding on random checks
On impounding, the Court directed:
“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 honored, necessary steps shall be taken to impound the vehicle itself.”
Freezing of online services, blacklisting and PUC
The Court said that what is expected for effective recovery is to freeze online services for vehicles with outstanding amounts. The authorities are to bar renewal of the registration certificate, issuance of a duplicate registration certificate and any update of the owner’s address, deny the fitness certificate until all pending fines are cleared, block ownership transfer and blacklist the vehicle on the Parivahan Portal, which, it noted, will come in the way of the owner if he wants to sell the vehicle. For multiple violations, the driving licence is to be suspended from renewal, and measures are to be taken to suspend a licence already in force. Adding a further measure, the Court said:
“What is most important is that no Center should be permitted to issue PUC certificate.”
The Bench also drew the authorities’ attention to the amended Rule 21(25) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in force from 2026, under which a licence holder who commits five or more offences or contraventions in a year starting January 1, 2026 is treated as a nuisance or danger to the public.
AI-enabled enforcement and a monthly public dashboard
Directing the States and Union Territories to implement forthwith the Standard Operating Procedure of October 28, 2025 of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) and to comply with Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 167A of the CMVR, the Court asked them to notify e-enforcement sites, finalise device procurement, deployment and calibration, and called on MoRTH to file an affidavit with a specific timeline. It asked the National Road Safety Board to monitor e-enforcement, and told the authorities to take into consideration the suggestions of the applicant appearing in person, which include the following:
- Electronic enforcement systems that are AI-enabled and capable of detecting the twelve categories of violations specified in Rule 167A(3) of the CMVR;
- A supplementary action plan by MoRTH on incorporating the NCRB Concept Paper of October 2023, including a National Road Safety System and integration of VAHAN-4, SARATHI, e-Challan, e-DAR, iRAD and traffic control rooms;
- A public online dashboard, updated at least monthly, showing State-wise and National Highway corridor-wise details of corridors identified for e-enforcement, devices installed and their functional status, categories of violations monitored and violations detected against e-challans generated.
Warning on non-implementation
Noting that its directions in this case have been issued over a period of almost a year before this Bench, the Court asked the Amicus to prepare a chart of all directions, with the date, the time given, the current status and his remarks, and warned:
“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.”
Other directions in the order
In the same order, the Court reminded the Chief Secretary of the Government of NCT of Delhi of its September 15 directions on safe pedestrian crossing on Mathura Road near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park, asked him to file a compliance report, and said that if the directions have not been complied with he must appear in person on the next date. It also deferred the hearing of one application and asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation for a more comprehensive report on implementation of its Universal Footpath Policy of May 26, 2023. On an application treating overloading of goods vehicles as a road safety hazard, the Court ordered in terms of the reliefs sought, which include requiring excess load to be removed before an overloaded transport vehicle can proceed past the point of detection, treating payment of a fee or penalty as no substitute for compliance with the statutory load limits, integrating weigh-in-motion systems with toll and electronic enforcement, police assistance for enforcement, and quarterly reporting of overloading and related accident data. It also directed that a further suggestion by applicant Kishan Chand be looked into.
Taking up an application not on the board because of the death of nine passengers in a sleeper bus fire near Jewar on the Yamuna Expressway on the night of September 23-24, 2026, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, the Union of India and the Secretary, MoRTH to respond to the reliefs sought, and asked whether the driver and the registered owner of the bus had been arrested and whether the owner had complied with all rules before plying the double-decker bus. The information is to be filed by affidavit by the next date.
Why The Order On Unpaid E-Challans Matters
The order moves enforcement of e-challans from the courts to the vehicle’s registration, fitness, PUC and ownership records, so that unpaid fines can stop an owner from using or selling the vehicle. Its practical effect will depend on how States and Union Territories put the freezing and impounding measures in place. The Court has warned that it may take stern action if its directions remain on paper.
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012]
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae; Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Union of India; Advocates Krishna Kumar and Vinodh Kanna B. for the petitioner; counsel for the States and Union Territories and the applicants