E-Challan Issued Through Personal Mobile Phone Of Police Officer Is Procedurally Defective: Srinagar Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 May 2026 1:50 PM IST
A trial court in Srinagar has quashed multiple e-challans issued against a vehicle owner, holding that the challans were issued in violation of Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as they were not generated through officially authenticated electronic enforcement devices and lacked the mandatory procedural safeguards.
Judge Shabir Ahmad Malik while allowing the application and quashing the challans, observed,
“... the issuance of a challan through a personal mobile phone/smartphone by a police officer as opposed to an officially issued and authenticated device is not in conformity with the mandate of Rule 167A of the CMVR and renders such a challan procedurally defective and legally infirm.”
The Court was hearing a consolidated trial of three challans issued against the same vehicle for offences including "Disobedience of traffic signals" and "Driving vehicle on footpath or track in breach of Rules." The registered owner appeared in person and contested the challans.
The applicant contended that the location for the first challan did not have any functional traffic signal, and that the challans were vague and unsupported by evidence. It was argued that the photographs attached did not depict any traffic signal, stop line, or act of violation, and that the challans were issued mechanically without factual foundation. It was also submitted that the e-challans violated Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The Court examined Rule 167A of the CMVR, 1989, introduced vide notification G.S.R. 575(E) on 11.08.2021, which lays down the detailed procedure for electronic monitoring and enforcement. The Court noted that the term "electronic enforcement device" under the Rule includes speed cameras, CCTV cameras, speed guns, body wearable cameras, dashboard cameras, ANPR, and such other technology specified by the State Government.
The Court held that the Rule contemplates officially issued, authenticated, and designated devices that are procured and configured by the State Government, integrated with national databases, and capable of generating a unique, system-authenticated challan number with a tamper-evident audit trail.
The Court observed,
“.. A personal mobile phone/smartphone however technologically advanced does not, by its mere ownership or possession by a police officer, acquire the character of a prescribed device under Rule 167A CMVR. Such a device lacks official authentication, is not registered or linked to the traffic enforcement system in the name and designation of the issuing officer, and is not subject to the oversight and accountability mechanisms envisaged by the Rule.”
The Court further noted that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 167A mandates that every e-challan shall be accompanied with: clear photographic evidence highlighting the offence and the license plate of the vehicle, measurement from the electronic enforcement device, date, time and place of the offence, notice specifying the provision violated, and a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In the present case, the photographs attached to the challans appeared to have been taken through a mobile phone, and no such mandatory information was provided, the Court found.
The Court also noted that e-challans can be issued only for the offences specified under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 167A, which include speeding, jumping red light, using handheld communication devices while driving, driving against the flow of traffic, and others. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove that the alleged violator had committed the violation, despite sufficient opportunities.
Referring to the Supreme Court's direction in S. Rajasekaran v. Union of India & Ors. , the Court noted that the Governments of Union Territories and States shall ensure compliance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 167A by issuing challans only on the basis of footage from electronic enforcement devices.
The Court held that the pleas raised by the applicant were well founded and reasonable, and that the challans were in violation of mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 167A and the mandate of the Supreme Court, rendering them procedurally defective and legally infirm.
Accordingly, the Court quashed all three challans and directed the Traffic Police Authorities and other authorities empowered to issue e-challans to strictly adhere to the mandatory requirements of Rule 167A of the CMVR, 1989 and the directions of the Supreme Court, to issue e-challans only through officially authenticated electronic enforcement devices.
The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the SSP Traffic Police City Srinagar for information and compliance.
Case Title: Ahra Syed v. SSP Traffic Police City Srinagar