NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday suggested that States and Union Territories consider linking unpaid traffic challans to electricity bills as a possible way to recover outstanding fines. A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan made the suggestion while hearing a plea concerning electronic enforcement of traffic violations and recovery of unpaid e-challan fines.
According to a report in Bar and Bench Justice Pardiwala said merely issuing e-challans was not enough and that authorities needed to focus on recovering the fines. The Court suggested that unpaid traffic fines could be added to electricity dues, giving defaulters an additional incentive to clear the outstanding amount.
The suggestion came after the Court was informed that States and Union Territories have around ₹45,000 crore in e-challan dues to recover. Of this, approximately ₹25,000 crore has been recovered so far.
Measures discussed for recovery
The Court discussed several measures to ensure recovery of unpaid e-challan fines. These included preventing renewal of registration certificates, issuance of duplicate certificates and changes in vehicle ownership details until outstanding challans are cleared. It also suggested blacklisting vehicles with unpaid challans on the Parivahan portal and blocking ownership transfers.
If people are not paying traffic challans, add it to their electricity dues bill. They’ll have to pay electricity bills else power line will be disconnected. Work it out. In this country, you have to find a way out: Supreme Court suggests https://t.co/BtAGHbufc3
Also Read— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) September 28, 2026
The Court further discussed withholding fitness and Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates for such vehicles. It also considered preventing renewal of driving licences and taking steps to suspend licences that are already in force. Justice Pardiwala stressed that the measures should be effective at the ground level and take into account practical realities.
The Court also suggested random checks of vehicles to identify those with unpaid e-challans. It said that if a vehicle was found to have an unpaid challan, necessary steps could be taken to impound it.
Case concerns electronic enforcement
The suggestions were made while hearing an application seeking directions for implementation of electronic enforcement mechanisms under Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The application was heard as part of a long-running public interest litigation on road safety filed in 2012 by Coimbatore-based orthopaedic surgeon S Rajaseekaran. The petition seeks coordinated measures to reduce road accidents and improve infrastructure and post-accident care.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has issued several directions in the case concerning road safety and enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act. In August 2025, the Court said it would also consider directions for creating portals to facilitate payment of compensation to road accident victims.
In October last year, it directed all States and Union Territories to frame rules for pedestrian safety and to regulate the movement of non-motorised vehicles, including cycles and hand carts, in public spaces. More recently, in May this year, the Court directed States and UTs to strictly implement Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The rule requires public service vehicles to have vehicle location tracking devices (VLTDs) and emergency or panic buttons. The Court also directed that no public service vehicle should be granted a fitness certificate or transport permit unless the required devices were installed. States were further directed to retrofit the devices in existing public service vehicles and integrate their installation and functionality with the Vahan database.
Court seeks status of earlier directions
During the broader proceedings, the Court questioned whether its directions issued over nearly 14 years had translated into results on the ground. The Court asked Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus curiae, to prepare a chart detailing the directions issued, the time granted for implementation, their current status and the amicus’ remarks. The Court observed that directions could not remain on paper indefinitely if authorities were not implementing them.
