Block vehicle licence renewals, registration & pollution certificates over unpaid traffic fines: Supreme Court

The court also directed that vehicles with outstanding e-challans be blacklisted on the central Parivahan portal.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed states and Union territories (UTs) to freeze online and other vehicle-related services, including renewal of registration, issuance of fitness and pollution-under-control certificates (PUC), ownership transfers and even renewal of driving licences, where traffic fines remain unpaid, as part of a nationwide push to make electronic enforcement of road-safety laws more effective.

The bench said that merely issuing thousands or lakhs of e-challans served little purpose unless authorities were able to recover the fines. (HT file)

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan also directed that vehicles with outstanding e-challans be blacklisted on the central Parivahan portal, blocking their sale or transfer, while no centre should be permitted to issue a PUC certificate until pending traffic fines are cleared. In cases involving multiple violations, authorities have been told to suspend renewal of the driving licence and take steps to suspend an existing licence.

The bench said that merely issuing thousands or lakhs of e-challans served little purpose unless authorities were able to recover the fines. The court was informed that about ₹49,194.05 crore was outstanding against e-challans issued over a period of time, of which ₹26,175.05 crore was recovered so far.

It emphasised that authorities had to work at the “ground level having regard to the ground realities”. “What is expected of the authorities insofar as effective implementation of recovery of fine etc. is concerned is to freeze the online services for vehicles which have outstanding amounts. The Authorities shall bar from renewing registration certificate, issuing duplicate registration certificate and also shall not entertain any request for updating owner's address etc. The authorities shall also deny fitness certificate until all pending traffic fines are entirely cleared and further there should be blacklisting of the vehicle concerned on the Parivahan Portal,” it said.

For multiple violations, the court held, driving license shall be suspended from renewal and measures shall also be taken to suspend the driving license which may be in force. “What is most important is that no center should be permitted to issue PUC certificate,” the order added.

The order came in a 2012 road-safety case in which the bench has been monitoring implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules for nearly 14 years. The judges expressed concern that directions could continue to remain on paper if authorities failed to implement them on the ground.

Electronic enforcement

The court further directed all states and UTs to forthwith implement the Standard Operating Procedure prepared by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on October 28, 2025, and comply with Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

The provisions require electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety through technologies such as speed cameras, CCTV cameras and speed guns. States and UTs have been asked to notify e-enforcement sites, finalise procurement, deployment and calibration of enforcement devices, while the National Road Safety Board has been directed to monitor the implementation.

Underlining that electronic enforcement could not end with the generation of an e-challan, it directed random checking of vehicles and said that if a vehicle was found to have an e-challan that had not been honoured, authorities should take necessary steps to impound it.

The bench also took note of an amended Rule 21(25), brought into force in 2026, under which commission of five or more offences or contraventions under the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules in a one-year period constitutes an act of nuisance or danger to the public.

Compliance on ground

The bench's concern over implementation was particularly evident in relation to Delhi. It asked whether its directions issued on September 15 had been complied with and was informed by amicus curiae and senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal that, despite his September 19 communication to the Delhi chief secretary, there had been no response.

The directions concerned pedestrian safety on Mathura Road near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park, including functional pedestrian signals, synchronised red lights, speed-limiting measures and electronic enforcement.

The court directed the Delhi chief secretary to file a compliance report and warned that if the directions were not complied with, the chief secretary would have to personally appear before the bench on the next date.

The bench, noting that it had spent almost a year issuing directions in the matter, said it had put an “unusual question” to the amicus – whether the effort had yielded positive results on the ground.

It has now asked the amicus to prepare a comprehensive chart of all directions issued by the bench, specifying the date of each direction, the time granted for implementation, its current status and the amicus's remarks. State counsel have been asked to provide information sought by the amicus through interrogatories.

Overloaded vehicles

On overloading, the court directed authorities to ensure that the suggestions placed before it are acted upon, including preventing an overloaded transport vehicle from proceeding beyond the point of detection until the excess load is removed.

The application before the court pointed out that overloading increases braking distance and the risk of brake failure, tyre blowouts and rollovers, while also reducing steering control and vehicle stability.

The proposed enforcement framework includes integration of weigh-in-motion and weighbridge systems with toll-management and electronic enforcement systems so that action against overloaded vehicles cannot be defeated merely because a vehicle is registered in or moves into another state.

Footpath policy

The bench also sought a more comprehensive report from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on implementation of its Universal Footpath Policy of May 26, 2023.

The BMC told the court that it was preparing a geospatially mapped digital inventory of existing and missing footpaths and integrating the exercise with its GIS platform and 3D city model. The court directed that a report be filed on further steps taken and stressed adherence to the timelines for implementation of the policy.

The matter arises from the Supreme Court's continuing monitoring of road safety under S Rajaseekaran Vs Union of India, a litigation that began in 2012 and has seen the court issue a series of directions aimed at making statutory road-safety requirements enforceable beyond the issuance of orders and challans.