"Paramount Importance": Supreme Court Refers V-Courts Traffic Challan Glitch To E-Committee

The Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order after hearing Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for petitioner Prabhjot Singh Dhillon.

The order recorded that the issue raised was of "paramount importance" for the better functioning of the V-Courts portal.

What the petition says is wrong with V-Courts

The writ petition filed through AoR Prabhas Bajaj sought a mandamus directing the e-Committee of the Supreme Court and the Delhi Traffic Police to implement modifications to the V-Court and Delhi Traffic Police (DTP) portals for online disposal of traffic challans, and to bring the systems into conformity with directions issued by the Delhi High Court in Benetton India Private Limited vs. State of NCT of Delhi.

The petition's central grievance is that for compoundable offences, the V-Court's online payment system incorrectly treats payment of a fine as a plea of guilt, leading to a conviction; contrary to settled legal principles governing compounding of offences. According to the petition, citizens compounding offences on the V-Courts website are unwittingly entering a plea of guilty and being convicted, without knowing the consequences of that action.

The petition lists four fundamental issues with the current system:

1. Delayed notices: A lack of reliable mechanism to notify vehicle owners of alleged offences within the prescribed 15-day period, with delays often extending several months on the DTP website. The petition notes that under Section 209 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a conviction under Sections 183 and 184 is barred unless notice is issued within 14 days and summons served within 28 days — timelines it says are not complied with in most cases.

2. Dark patterns in the interface: The V-Court's platform is described as having a confusing user interface that incorrectly equates fine payment with a plea of guilt, resulting in convictions for compoundable offences.

3. No option to identify the actual driver: The petition states it is difficult for vehicle owners to identify who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence on the V-Courts platform, forcing registered owners to contest challans and appear in court even when they were not driving.

4. No grievance redressal mechanism: The absence of a time-bound online grievance redressal mechanism compels citizens to either accept wrongful convictions or undergo a burdensome physical legal process.

Delhi High Court had already flagged these issues

The petition points out that the Delhi High Court, in the Benetton case, had already addressed these deficiencies and requested the e-Committee to incorporate specific modifications, including streamlining the process for updating mobile numbers linked to vehicles, establishing a time-bound resolution mechanism with the district ACP, enabling an option to identify the actual driver of the vehicle, and enabling an option to compound offences without it constituting a record of conviction.

Petitioner's efforts before approaching the Supreme Court

According to the petition, the petitioner had filed two RTI applications with the e-Committee, on 18 February 2025 and a follow-up on 6 June 2025; seeking specifics on the steps, plans and timeline for implementing the Delhi High Court's recommendations. With no meaningful response, a representation was filed before the e-Committee, which the petition states was neither responded to nor acted upon.

The petition also alleges that despite assurances given to the Delhi High Court by the Delhi Traffic Police in the Benetton case, the petitioner was unable to access the promised in-person grievance redressal with the ACP at Greater Kailash-I Police Station during the prescribed hours and days, demonstrating non-implementation of the commitment.

Reliefs Sought

The petition prays for directions to the e-Committee to act upon the Delhi High Court's recommendations from the Benetton case; to update the V-Courts portal to include a clear, independent option for compounding offences that does not require entering a plea of guilt; to mandate the physical presence of the ACP or an authorised officer at police stations during set days and times for grievance redressal; and to direct the Delhi Traffic Police to establish a reliable system ensuring vehicle owners are notified of alleged offences within the statutorily mandated 15-day period.