PANAJI
Three days before, the Goa Police admitted that its personnel were illegally using personal mobile phones to issue challans, a trial court in Srinagar had already declared such enforcement procedurally defective and legally infirm.
In a precedent-setting order on May 5, Special Mobile Magistrate (Traffic) Shabir Ahmad Malik quashed five e-challans issued against a Srinagar resident, ruling that Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules permits challans only through officially authenticated electronic enforcement devices integrated with the national e-challan system.
The court categorically observed that a personal smartphone does not, by its mere ownership or possession by a police officer, acquire the character of a prescribed device.
“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 l67A CMVR. Such a device lacks official authentication, is not registered or linked to the traffic enforcement system in the name and designation of the issuing officer, and is not subject to the oversight and accountability mechanisms envisaged by the Rule,” an extract of the 16-page order, copy of which is in possession of The Goan, stated.
The ruling gains particular relevance in Goa because on May 8, Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Prabodh Shirwaiker issued an internal communication admitting that personnel in the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, and Police Constable were using private mobile phones to photograph violations and generate challans.
Shirwaiker himself warned that the practice was bringing disrepute to the department and alleged that motorists, including tourists, were being harassed.
The Srinagar case arose after advocate Ahra Syed challenged five challans alleging offences such as signal jumping and disobeying lawful directions. She argued that the challans were vague, unsupported by evidence and reflected a “revenue-oriented challan regime”.
During proceedings, the traffic police failed to produce witnesses and relied only on photographs attached to the challans. The court held that valid e-challans must contain mandatory details including clear photographic evidence, date, time, place of offence, legal provisions invoked and certification under the Indian Evidence Act.
Quashing all five challans, the court directed authorities to strictly comply with Rule 167A and use only authenticated enforcement devices for electronic traffic prosecution.
