HC Questions Traffic Police Practice in Issuing Challans

Hyderabad: Justice NV Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court sought a comprehensive counter-affidavit from the State in two writ petitions challenging the procedure followed by the Hyderabad Traffic Police in issuing traffic alerts. The Government’s Home Affairs Counsel was directed to file a detailed response on record within a week and the matters were posted to 23 December 2025 for further hearing.

During the hearing of the first petition, the plaintiff’s lawyer argued that Telangana has not implemented the amendments introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act in 2019. It was claimed that traffic violations continue to be punished within the scope of the provisions and relevant rules that have not been amended in the law. The petitioner specifically referred to Section 128, which deals with safety requirements for drivers and pillion riders and does not independently prescribe a penalty. According to the petitioner, any violation of this provision may attract general punishment only under Section 177, which provides for a fine of ₹100 for the first offense and ₹300 for subsequent offences.

In response, the government counsel informed the court that the matter was addressed and prepared a revised integrated e-challan with reference to offenses under Sections 127, 128 and 184 of the Act. However, the court noted the inconsistencies in the document, observing that while the name of the vehicle owner was mentioned, the plaintiff’s name was missing and there was no clarity about the legal provisions applied. The court noted that the correction appeared to be incomplete and confusion remained in the e-challan system.

In the second petition, the difficulty regarding the practice of stopping drivers to rescue stranded drivers was expressed. The petitioner argued that offenses punishable by imprisonment cannot be enhanced by the police and must be decided by a Magistrate. Although the State relied on the Government Order, 2011, which allowed compounding of offences, the petitioner submitted that the offenses under Section 184 were not compoundable.

The court also questioned the lack of details regarding the equipment used to record the alleged traffic violations, following which the State sought time to file a detailed response.