There is no denying that the State government has introduced subtle changes over time to traffic enforcement amid allegations of corruption in the system and unfair practices. Moreover, with the rising rate of accidents, traffic police have been at the receiving end for failing to enforce the law in a manner expected, and hence tightening protocols was seen as a step in the right direction. More laser speed guns were brought in, Artificial Intelligence surveillance cameras, body cameras for officers and other equipment were introduced. To some extent, there was a belief that it would work.
That narrative, however, has now hit a serious roadblock. Documents accessed through the Right to Information Act have revealed that thousands of challans were issued before the devices used to detect violations were officially certified. In simple terms, enforcement began before the tools were cleared for use. That raises uncomfortable questions about the validity of the fines that followed.
The law leaves little room for ambiguity. Rule 167-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules requires that any electronic enforcement equipment be tested and certified to ensure accuracy. In Goa’s case, that certification came only on February 20, 2026. Yet, throughout 2024 and 2025, the system was already in motion. Speed radars, body cameras, and, more worryingly, photographs taken on mobile phones formed the backbone of enforcement. The problem is that mobile phones, however convenient, are not recognised under the rules as approved tools for documenting violations.
That gap between what the law requires and what was actually done now puts a cloud over the entire exercise. Legal experts are already pointing out that challans issued during this uncertified period may not stand up to scrutiny if challenged. And if motorists do take that route, the consequences could be significant—not just in terms of refunds running into crores, but also in the credibility of the system itself. The numbers tell their own story. In 2025 alone, tens of thousands of challans were issued across North and South Goa, with collections crossing Rs 2 crore. A substantial chunk of these were based on mobile phone images. If even a fraction of these cases are contested successfully, the fallout will be hard to contain.
More than the financial implications, this episode exposes a deeper problem since enforcement has run ahead of regulation. The official line that central rules apply only to larger cities does not fully answer the questions being raised. Going by that yardstick, why would there be a need for certification, which was eventually obtained? The issue is not whether the devices could be approved, but why they were used before an approval came through.
Challans raised through uncertified means weaken the foundation of any enforcement action. Listing certified equipment now offers little comfort if those certifications came after the action. The government may have responded quickly, calling for a detailed report into the entire episode, but what follows will matter more. Without a firm ground to contest the rules, the government will have very limited choices. Firstly, open up the window for those who want to contest penalties. And secondly, push this issue to the back burner and wait for people to move the courts.
While necessary safeguards have to be put in place, the government must seek accountability from the police leadership, because this is about an illegality, one that has made a mockery of policing. Innovation, however well-intentioned, cannot come at the cost of due procedure. The way forward is neither to abandon technology nor to defend the indefensible. It lies in restoring balance and ensuring that systems are not just efficient, but also lawful and transparent. It is bizarre when traffic enforcement is trapped on the wrong side of the law.
