The court was informed that e-challans worth about ₹49,194.05 crore remained outstanding across the country, while ₹26,175.05 crore had been recovered so far. The Supreme Court has directed States and Union Territories to block a range of online and vehicle-related services for motorists with outstanding traffic fines, including registration renewals, fitness and pollution-under-control certificates, ownership transfers and driving licence renewals.
The directions were issued in a road-safety case dating back to 2012, in which the top court has been monitoring the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for nearly 14 years. The Bench also sought details of the steps taken by the Delhi government to comply with its September 15 directions on pedestrian safety along Mathura Road near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park. Amicus curiae and senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal informed the court that he had written to the Delhi Chief Secretary on September 19 regarding compliance with the directions but had received no response.
To ensure transparency, the court also directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to set up a public dashboard showing how electronic traffic enforcement is being implemented across the country. It will carry monthly updates on enforcement locations, devices installed and their operational status, violations detected and e-challans generated. The Bench directed the Chief Secretary to file a compliance report, giving the administration further time to carry out the measures but warning that failure to do so would require his personal appearance at the next hearing.
“If our directions have not been complied with so far, the Chief Secretary still has some time to undertake the necessary action and do the needful, failing which he shall personally remain present before us on the next date of hearing,” the Bench ordered. Noting that it had “devoted precious judicial time” to the case in the interest and safety of citizens, the top court also questioned whether the directions it had issued over the past year had produced results on the ground. It put what it described as an “unusual question” to the amicus curiae — whether the court’s efforts had actually yielded positive results.
The earlier directions called for measures including functional pedestrian signals, synchronised traffic lights, speed-control measures and electronic enforcement along the stretch.
