Supreme Court Proposes Linking Unpaid Traffic Fines to Electricity Bills
In a bid to recover ₹45,000 crore in unpaid traffic fines, the Supreme Court suggests adding these dues to electricity bills.
Supreme Court suggests linking unpaid traffic fines to electricity bills.
States have recovered approximately ₹25,000 crore of the ₹45,000 crore owed.
Court emphasizes the need for effective ground-level enforcement measures.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India proposed a novel approach to recover unpaid traffic fines by suggesting that States and Union Territories link these dues to electricity bills. This recommendation came during a hearing related to the electronic enforcement of traffic violations and the collection of outstanding e-challan fines in the case of S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.
Justice JB Pardiwala, addressing the issue, highlighted that merely issuing e-challans is insufficient. He stressed the importance of focusing on the recovery of fines, stating, "It is not just sufficient to keep issuing e-challans." The Court's suggestion aims to incentivize defaulters to clear their dues by incorporating unpaid fines into their electricity bills, warning that failure to pay could lead to disconnection of power.
The backdrop of this discussion revealed that States and Union Territories are collectively owed around ₹45,000 crore in unpaid e-challans, with only ₹25,000 crore recovered thus far. The Court explored various measures to enhance recovery efforts, including preventing the renewal of vehicle registration certificates, blocking ownership transfers, and withholding fitness and Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificates for vehicles with outstanding fines.
In addition to these measures, the Court proposed random vehicle checks to identify those with unpaid e-challans. Justice Pardiwala emphasized the necessity for authorities to implement these strategies effectively at the ground level, stating, "The authorities need to work at the ground level having regard to ground realities."
Looking ahead, the Court's ongoing public interest litigation, initiated in 2012 by orthopaedic surgeon S Rajaseekaran, continues to address road safety and enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court has previously issued directives aimed at improving road safety and accident response measures, and it remains to be seen how these latest suggestions will be implemented to ensure compliance and enhance public safety on the roads.
