Goa’s traffic police have come under sharp scrutiny in recent days over the challans they have raised, raising serious questions about their legality. After being in denial consistently to the series of news reports in this newspaper, and stoutly defending their position, the department finally admitted to the violation that traffic personnel were using personal mobile phones to photograph violations and issue challans, even though such devices are not recognised as approved enforcement tools under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
An internal communication from Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Prabodh Shirwaiker sourced by this newspaper acknowledged that personnel were using personal phones. More worrying are allegations that the practice was used to target and harass motorists, including tourists. If true, it reflects an enforcement culture driven less by lawful process and more by convenience and revenue collection. The controversy also highlights a broader issue in traffic enforcement, which often relies on shortcuts while overlooking laws. Efficiency cannot come at the cost of due process.
The disclosure, however, comes at a time when public confidence in Goa’s traffic enforcement system has been weakened due to serious gaps and charges of corruption that have been raised on numerous occasions. In the current expose, thousands of challans were reportedly issued and more than Rs 3 crore in fines collected since 2024 through a process that now appears legally questionable. This is not a minor procedural lapse, but rather goes to the core of an illegality that the top brass was aware of.
At the centre of the controversy is Rule 167-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which requires electronic enforcement devices used to record violations to be tested and certified by an authorised agency before they can be used for legal enforcement. This clearly means that personal phones cannot be used to raise traffic challans. Official records show that certification was obtained only on February 20, 2026, much after challans were “illegally” raised and fines collected.
The question is simple. If the photographs used as evidence were captured on uncertified devices like personal cell phones, the process becomes illegal. The department’s argument that the existing method falls outside the scope of Rule 167-A skirts the primary issue of whether the footage collected met the legal requirements of enforcement.
The question that now arises is whether the government will allow a review of these dubious challans and provide refunds. The numbers involved are running into crores. More than Rs 3.24 crore has reportedly been collected through fines, many of them issued before certification was secured.
Introducing technology in traffic enforcement is positive, provided it is used within a transparent and lawful framework. Unfortunately, officials trying to exploit a loophole to gain an unfair advantage is something that defeats the purpose of reforms. We recall traffic police charged earlier with using private UPIs to channel fines, an illegality that saw transfers in the force without any substantial action. An attitude of denial will do very little to address concerns. On the contrary, it will embolden those engaging in illegalities.
While a circular is issued by the SP, questions will continue to linger on how this exercise of allowing personal cell phones started, and who authorised it. These questions may find no answers, given the tendency of police bosses to habitually defend violations. The use of uncertified mobile phones for issuing challans was not a technical oversight. It was a serious lapse that has cast doubt on the legality of fines collected and the integrity of the enforcement process.
Public confidence depends not just on enforcing the law, but on enforcing it fairly and legally.
