Telangana High Court to police: Do not force citizens to pay pending traffic challans
Justice NV Shravan Kumar heard two writ petitions filed by Raghavendra Chary, a resident of Secunderabad, who challenged the enforcement mechanisms of Hyderabad Traffic Police.
Hyderabad: Telangana High Court ordered the traffic police not to stop and force citizens to pay pending traffic challans, in what could be dubbed as a major relief for commuters.
The court observed that the police cannot snatch keys or take any other coercive steps over pending challans. Any citizen who wants to pay can do so voluntarily and if the police wants to take action, then due process such as court notice must be provided.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar heard two writ petitions filed by Raghavendra Chary, a resident of Secunderabad, who challenged the enforcement mechanisms of Hyderabad Traffic Police.
He questioned the legality of many of the enforcement methods employed by the traffic police.
Writ petition challenges Telangana Police’s method:
This comes after the high court previously heard another writ petition challenging Telangana Police’s practice of cornering and forcing citizens to pay the pending traffic challan on the spot. Justice Madhavi Devi issued notices to the Home Department and sought a reply in four weeks.
Arbitrary amounts being charged by traffic police:
Raghavendra Chary in his plea noted that a challan imposed on him for Rs 1,200 in March 2025 was illegal and asked the court to declare it as such. The petitioner noted that traffic challans imposed on his vehicle were based only on photographs taken through mobile phones by Hyderabad traffic police and challenged the evidence.
Advocate Vijay Gopal arguing on behalf of the petitioner said that the challans imposed are contrary to Section 128 r/w Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 167A (6) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
A major argument being made in the petition is that police are making arbitrary decisions about penalty amounts without judicial oversight. The counsel argued that only the judicial magistrate has the jurisdiction to decide punishment and not field-level personnel such as constables, home guards or circle inspectors.