Delhi district court lawyers strike over changes to motor vehicle rules

Lawyers across Delhi’s district courts on Monday held a one-day strike and abstained from judicial work to protest amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which they said could alter the mechanism for challenging and adjudicating contested traffic challans

Lawyers across Delhi’s district courts on Monday held a one-day strike and abstained from judicial work to protest amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which they said could alter the mechanism for challenging and adjudicating contested traffic challans.

(Shutterstock)

The protest followed a notification issued by the All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi. The lawyers have now decided to intensify their protest by marching from Tis Hazari courts to the Lieutenant Governor’s office on September 24, demanding withdrawal of the amendments.

“We have decided to intensify our protest to demand the rollback of the new challan disposal mechanism and all advocates will march to the LG’s office to convey our apprehensions,” said Narveer Dabas, secretary general of the bar committee.

The advocates have primarily objected to the transfer of 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).

50% pre-deposit for going to court

The point of contention for advocates is the financial condition imposed on a person whose challenge to a challan is rejected by the designated authority. 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,” Dabas said.

The circular further said the changes raised concerns over the separation of executive and judicial functions.

The committee has also opposed the designation of 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. “Courts would become relevant only after rejection of the administrative challenge, with the additional 50% pre-deposit requirement,” he said.

Advocate Tarun Rana, secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association, said the committee had submitted representations to the Delhi government on August 27 and September 7. He said the lawyers were assured during meetings with the law and justice minister that the proposal to appoint SDMs and departmental officers would not be implemented until the matter was taken up with the Centre.

“We subsequently learnt through media reports that officers from various departments had been notified as authorities for challan redressal,” Rana said.