The Supreme Court on Thursday directed states and Union territories (UTs) to block a range of vehicle-related online services for vehicles with unpaid traffic fines, including renewal of registration, issuance of fitness and pollution-under-control (PUC) certificates, ownership transfers and, in cases involving multiple violations, renewal of driving licences.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan also ordered that vehicles against which e-challans remain unpaid be blacklisted on the central Parivahan portal, preventing their sale or transfer. No centre should issue a PUC certificate until outstanding traffic fines have been cleared.
The directions came as the court stressed that issuing thousands or lakhs of e-challans would serve little purpose unless authorities were able to recover the fines. The court was informed that ₹49,194.05 crore remained outstanding against e-challans issued over a period of time, while ₹26,175.05 crore had been recovered.
The bench said enforcement had to take place at the “ground level having regard to the ground realities”. It directed authorities to freeze online services for vehicles with outstanding dues and bar renewal of registration certificates, issuance of duplicate registration certificates and requests for updating an owner's address until the pending amounts were cleared.
Fitness certificates must also be withheld until all outstanding traffic fines are paid, while the concerned vehicle must be blacklisted on the Parivahan portal.
Driving licences and PUC certificates
The court further directed that, where there are multiple violations, renewal of the driving licence should be suspended and steps should be taken to suspend an existing licence.
The bench specifically directed that no centre should be permitted to issue a PUC certificate while traffic fines remain unpaid.
The measures form part of the court's continuing effort to make electronic enforcement of road-safety laws result in actual recovery of penalties rather than merely the generation of e-challans.
The court had also, during an earlier hearing, suggested that states and UTs consider linking unpaid traffic challans with electricity bills as a possible mechanism to improve recovery. That proposal was discussed alongside measures such as blocking registration renewals, ownership transfers and PUC certificates, but was not itself framed as a direction in the reports of that hearing.
Electronic enforcement to be implemented
The latest order also directed all states and UTs to implement forthwith the Standard Operating Procedure prepared by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on October 28, 2025.
The authorities have also been directed to comply with Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
These provisions provide for electronic monitoring and enforcement of road-safety regulations through technologies including speed cameras, CCTV cameras and speed guns.
States and UTs have been asked to notify e-enforcement sites and complete the procurement, deployment and calibration of enforcement devices. The National Road Safety Board has been directed to monitor implementation.
The bench made it clear that electronic enforcement should not end with the generation of an e-challan. It directed authorities to conduct random checks of vehicles and said that where a vehicle was found to have an unpaid e-challan, necessary steps should be taken to impound it.
The court also took note of amended Rule 21(25), brought into force in 2026, under which committing five or more offences or contraventions under the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules within a one-year period constitutes an act of nuisance or danger to the public.
Delhi compliance under court scrutiny
The court's concern over implementation was also reflected in its proceedings concerning Delhi.
It sought to know whether directions issued on September 15 had been complied with and was informed by amicus curiae and senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal that there had been no response despite his September 19 communication to the Delhi chief secretary.
Those directions related to pedestrian safety on Mathura Road near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park. They included ensuring functional pedestrian signals, synchronised red lights, speed-limiting measures and electronic enforcement.
The Supreme Court directed the Delhi chief secretary to file a compliance report. It warned that if the directions were not implemented, the chief secretary would have to personally appear before the bench on the next date of hearing.
The bench observed that it had spent almost a year issuing directions in the matter and posed what it described as an “unusual question” to the amicus: whether the exercise had produced positive results on the ground.
The amicus has now been asked to prepare a comprehensive chart of all directions issued by the bench, mentioning the date of each direction, the time granted for implementation, the current status and the amicus's remarks.
Counsel representing the states have been asked to provide the information sought by the amicus through interrogatories.
Action ordered against overloaded vehicles
The bench also addressed the problem of overloaded transport vehicles.
It directed authorities to act on the suggestions placed before it, including ensuring that an overloaded transport vehicle cannot proceed beyond the point where the violation is detected until the excess load has been removed.
The application before the court highlighted the road-safety risks associated with overloading, including increased braking distance, brake failure, tyre blowouts and rollovers. It also reduces steering control and vehicle stability.
The proposed enforcement framework includes integrating weigh-in-motion and weighbridge systems with toll-management and electronic enforcement systems. The objective is to ensure that action against overloaded vehicles cannot be avoided simply because a vehicle is registered in, or subsequently moves into, another state.
BMC asked for report on footpath policy
The court also sought a more comprehensive report from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on the implementation of its Universal Footpath Policy of May 26, 2023.
The BMC informed the bench that it was preparing a geospatially mapped digital inventory of existing and missing footpaths and integrating the exercise with its geographic information system (GIS) platform and 3D city model.
The Supreme Court directed the civic body to file a report detailing further steps taken and stressed that the timelines for implementing the policy should be followed.
Road-safety case under monitoring since 2012
The directions were issued in the long-running road-safety litigation, S Rajaseekaran Vs Union of India, which began in 2012. The bench has been monitoring the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules in the case for nearly 14 years.
The litigation has previously involved directions concerning electronic enforcement. In a September 2024 order, the Supreme Court directed states and UTs to take immediate steps to implement Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act through Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, noting that the provision had remained largely on paper for several years.
The court has repeatedly emphasised the need for enforcement mechanisms to operate beyond the issuance of orders and challans. In the latest proceedings, the judges again expressed concern that judicial directions could remain on paper unless authorities ensured implementation at ground level.
The court's latest directions therefore cover recovery of unpaid traffic fines, electronic enforcement, action against repeat offenders and overloaded vehicles, pedestrian safety in Delhi and footpath implementation in Mumbai, while requiring state and local authorities to provide reports demonstrating compliance.