SRINAGAR: Special Mobile Magistrate Srinagar, Shabir Ahmad Malik has quashed five e-challans issued against a Srinagar-based advocate, holding that traffic authorities failed to comply with mandatory procedures under Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (CMVR), 1989, and questioning the legality of challans allegedly generated through personal mobile phones instead of authenticated electronic enforcement devices.
The order was passed by the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Kashmir, Srinagar, on May 5, 2026, in a case filed by Ahra Syed, resident of Madina Bagh, Chanapora, against the SSP Traffic Police City Srinagar.
The court dismissed and quashed five challans issued against vehicle registration number JK01AU-7078 for alleged offences including disobedience of traffic signals, disobeying lawful directions and driving on footpaths.
In a detailed 16-page judgment, the court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any witness despite repeated opportunities and could not establish that the challans had been issued through officially authenticated electronic enforcement devices as mandated under Rule 167A of the CMVR.
The petitioner, who appeared in person and identified herself as a practicing advocate, argued that the challans were “mechanically and unlawfully” issued without factual foundation or statutory compliance. She contended that the photographs attached with the e-challans did not establish any actual violation and lacked essential details such as traffic signals, stop lines, lawful directions or prohibited pedestrian markings.
The court noted that Rule 167A permits e-challans only through approved electronic enforcement devices equipped with features such as geo-tagging, authenticated data integration and tamper-evident audit trails.
“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,” the court observed.
The magistrate further held that allowing challans through personal mobile phones could lead to “serious mischief”, including fake or unauthorised challans, manipulation of evidence and harassment of citizens.
The judgment emphasized that e-challans can only be issued for specific offences enumerated under Rule 167A(3), including overspeeding, helmet violations, red-light jumping, dangerous driving and lane violations. The court said the Traffic Police must ensure strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including clear photographic evidence, time and location stamps, and certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in S. Rajaseekaran vs Union of India, the magistrate observed that electronic enforcement devices must be used strictly in accordance with Rule 167A and not for arbitrary surveillance or indiscriminate penalisation.
The court found that the photographs attached to the impugned challans “appear to have been taken through a mobile phone” and ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged violations.
Consequently, the court quashed all five challans and directed Traffic Police authorities and other agencies empowered to issue e-challans to strictly adhere to Rule 167A and Supreme Court directions while issuing future e-challans.
The court also directed authorities to ensure that e-challans are issued only through officially authenticated electronic enforcement devices and that every challan carries all mandatory statutory details prescribed under the rules.
