Why a court ruled traffic cops can’t use personal phones for e-Challans

Srinagar, May 10: A court in Srinagar has held that personal mobile phones of police personnel cannot be treated as authorised “electronic enforcement devices” under Rule 167 A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), 1989.

The Court of Special Mobile Magistrate Srinagar, Shabir Ahmad Malik, said this while allowing a plea challenging several e-challans issued for alleged traffic violations.

The Court noted that in keeping with Rule 167A of CMVR, a personal smartphone, “however technologically advanced,” does not acquire the “legal character” of a prescribed enforcement device merely because it is used by a police officer.

Underscoring that Rule 167A was introduced to facilitate a digital and transparent system of traffic enforcement through electronic means, the court said that the Rule envisages the use of electronic devices for issuance of challans for traffic violations as a modern substitute for the conventional written or paper challan system.

Rule 167A and the overall scheme of the CMVR makes it clear that a challan must be issued through an “electronic enforcement device” possessing an approval certificate signed by a designated authority of the State Government certifying that the device is accurate and functioning properly, the court said. The approval certificate is required to be renewed annually, it observed.

The court noted that the term ‘electronic device’ is not synonymous with any commercially available mobile phone or personal handheld device of a police officer.

It further held that the Rule contemplates officially issued, authenticated and designated devices that are procured, supplied and configured by or under the authority of the Government or the competent traffic authority; integrated with national databases as well as the NIC-managed National E-Challan System; capable of generating a unique, system-authenticated challan number that is traceable, verifiable and linked to a tamper-evident audit trail; and equipped with features such as GPS geo-tagging, photographic evidence capture, biometric authentication of the issuing officer and real-time data synchronisation, all of which lend legitimacy, accountability and enforceability to the challan.

The personal devices, the court said, lack official authentication as they are not linked to the traffic enforcement system in the name and designation of the issuing officer, and are not subject to the accountability and oversight safeguards mandated under the Rules.

“A personal mobile phone or 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,” the court said, underlining that such a device lacks official authentication and is not registered or linked to the traffic enforcement system in the name and designation of the issuing officer.

The same, it said, is also not subject to the oversight and accountability mechanisms envisaged by the rule. 

Referring to Sub-rule (6) of Rule 167A, the court said, an electronically issued challan must be accompanied by clear photographic evidence highlighting the offence and the vehicle’s registration plate;  measurements captured from the electronic enforcement device; the date, time and place of the offence; a notice specifying the provision of law violated; and a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 identifying the electronic record, describing the manner in which it was produced, and providing particulars of the device used in generating the record.

The court’s ruling came in a case in which the alleged violator submitted that the “challans were not the result of genuine enforcement of traffic discipline but a manifestation of a revenue-oriented challan regime, wherein members of the general public are indiscriminately targeted, photographed, and penalised without any meaningful verification of facts.”

The alleged violator had challenged the challans on the grounds that the photographs did not depict any actual violation and that some challans were vague and unsupported by material particulars.

In one of the challans alleging disobedience of traffic signals at LD Hospital Road, GogjiBagh, Srinagar, the petitioner argued that no functional traffic signal existed at the spot.

The plea also stated that the challans alleging disobedience of lawful directions failed to specify what direction had been given, by whom and in what manner it was allegedly violated.

“The photographs annexed do not depict any traffic signal, any signal post, any stop line or any act of violation. Merely clicking a photograph of a moving or stationary vehicle, without capturing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, does not constitute proof of violation under the Motor Vehicles Act”.

Holding the pleas to be well-founded, the court ruled that the challans violated the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 167A CMVR and the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court, rendering them “procedurally defective and legally infirm.” Accordingly, the court quashed challans.