Challan rules put on hold, lawyers’ call of strike

NEW DELHI: Two days after lawyers across Delhi’s district courts held a strike to protest amendments to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which they claimed could alter the traffic challan adjudication process, the Delhi government has put its implementation on hold

NEW DELHI: Two days after lawyers across Delhi’s district courts held a strike to protest amendments to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which they claimed could alter the traffic challan adjudication process, the Delhi government has put its implementation on hold.

The advocates, who threatened to march to the Lieutenant Governor’s office if their demands remain unmet, have primarily objected to transferring adjudicatory functions from judicial magistrates to sub-divisional magistrates (SDMs) and officers of various government departments. (HT Archive)

“The representation is being sent to the transportation department for examination and will also be brought to the notice of the LG and CM. Till then, the transport department is being directed to put on hold the implementation of the notification (amendments),” Transport Minister Pankaj Kumar Singh stated in a release.

Following the development, the coordination committee of all District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi has called off the proposed strike and protest march to the LG’s house on Thursday.

“Accordingly, the call for abstention from work and the proposed protest march on stands suspended,” the communication signed by NDBA secretary Tarun Rana said.

The advocates, who threatened to march to the Lieutenant Governor’s office if their demands remain unmet, have primarily objected to transferring adjudicatory functions from judicial magistrates to sub-divisional magistrates (SDMs) and officers of various government departments.

Amendments to Rule 167 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which came into effect on January 20 this year, replaced the earlier challan disposal framework with a time-bound “pay or contest” mechanism.

Under amended Rule 167(5), a person issued a challan must either pay it or contest it through the prescribed portal, along with documentary evidence, before an authority specified by the state government within 45 days. If the challan is not contested within that period, it is deemed to have been accepted under Rule 167(6).

The point of contention for advocates is the financial condition imposed on a person whose challenge to a challan the designated authority rejects. Under the amended mechanism, the person can approach the competent court only after depositing 50% of the challan amount.

The bar committee said the requirement could make access to judicial remedies more difficult, particularly for litigants who may not have the money to make the deposit. It described the condition as an “unreasonable impediment to judicial remedy”.

The lawyers also opposed having contested challans dealt with by executive and departmental officers instead of judicial magistrates.

“The issue is not merely administrative in nature as it concerns a citizen’s right to have a contested challan adjudicated by a competent judicial forum,” Narveer Dabas, secretary of the committee, said.

The committee has also opposed designating officials from departments such as food and supplies, tehsildars, and district transport and enforcement offices as authorities for redressal of challans.

Dabas said the changes could reduce the role of district-court magistrates in the first-stage adjudication of contested challans, with disputes initially being decided by authorities designated by the state government.