New Delhi, Oct 1 — The Supreme Court’s suggestion that pending traffic e-challan dues could be linked to electricity bills was an oral remark made during the hearing and does not form part of the order uploaded by the top court, which instead records a series of measures for effective recovery of unpaid traffic fines.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, while hearing a long-pending road safety matter, had on Monday suggested that authorities could explore adding unpaid traffic challans to electricity bills as a possible mechanism to ensure recovery of the dues arising from traffic violations.
However, the order passed on the same day but uploaded on Thursday does not contain any direction to link e-challan dues with electricity bills.
The order records several specific measures for recovery of outstanding e-challan amounts, including freezing online vehicle-related services, withholding renewal or issuance of registration certificates and duplicate registration certificates, and not entertaining requests for updating the owner's address until pending dues are cleared.
The Justice Pardiwala-led Bench also directed that fitness certificates should be denied until all pending traffic fines are cleared and called for blacklisting of vehicles with outstanding challans on the Parivahan portal, which would come in the way of their sale and transfer of ownership.
It further directed that, in cases of multiple violations, driving licences should not be renewed and steps should be taken to suspend licences already in force.
The Supreme Court said that no centre should be permitted to issue a Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate until the pending dues are cleared. It directed random checking of vehicles and said that if an e-challan issued against a vehicle had not been honoured, "necessary steps shall be taken to impound the vehicle itself".
The directions were issued in a long-pending writ petition concerning implementation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 relating to road safety and electronic enforcement.
The order recorded that the apex court had been monitoring the litigation for almost 14 years and that the present Bench had been hearing it for over a year, during which several directions had been issued for effective implementation of the statutory provisions relating to road safety.
"It is not just sufficient to keep issuing e-challans to the person who is alleged to have violated the provisions of the Act. Police may issue thousands and lakhs of such e-challans, but the question is how do you recover the fine as sought to be imposed by way of those e-challans," the bench observed.
It noted that the states and Union Territories (UTs) had to recover approximately Rs 49,194.05 crore towards e-challans issued over a period of time, while around Rs 26,175.05 crore had been recovered so far.
The Supreme Court said that the authorities needed to work at the ground level, having regard to the "ground realities", and stressed that merely issuing e-challans would not be sufficient unless there was an effective mechanism for recovery.
It also directed all states and UTs to implement the Standard Operating Procedure dated October 28, 2025, prepared by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and to ensure compliance with Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
The National Road Safety Board was also directed to monitor electronic enforcement.
The bench asked the amicus curiae, senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, to prepare a chart setting out the directions issued since it began monitoring the matter, the date of each direction, the time granted for implementation, its current status and the amicus curiae's remarks.
The top court also directed the Delhi Chief Secretary to file a report on compliance with its earlier directions concerning pedestrian safety near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park on Mathura Road. It warned that if its directions had not been complied with, the Delhi Chief Secretary would have to personally remain present before the Supreme Court on the next date of hearing.
The matter has been listed for November 25 at 2 p.m.