01/10/2026
The Supreme Court has suggested that unpaid traffic fines be added to electricity bills. The logic is simple: people will pay to keep the lights on: The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan made the remark during a road-safety public interest litigation.
The Court was told that States and Union Territories have issued e-challans worth approximately ₹45,000 crore. About ₹25,000 crore has been recovered. Roughly ₹20,000 crore remains unpaid.
The Court clarified that this was a suggestion, not a binding direction.
The suggestion raises a legal question that the hearing did not resolve.
Traffic violations are governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Electricity supply is governed by the Electricity Act, 2003. The two statutes create different obligations and different remedies.
Linking them would require a legislative framework that does not currently exist.
The Supreme Court has previously addressed the limits of coercive recovery in the electricity context. In K.C. Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors., 2023 INSC 560; Civil Appeal Nos. 2109-2110 of 2004, judgment dated 19 May 2023, delivered by Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the Court held that the duty to supply electricity under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not absolute. It is subject to the charges and conditions stipulated in the Act and the Electricity Supply Code.
The Court also held that electricity dues are tied to the premises, not to the individual. A new owner or occupier can be required to clear arrears accrued on the premises.
A traffic fine is tied to the person who committed the violation. It is not tied to the premises.
If a tenant commits a traffic offence and does not pay, adding the fine to the landlord's electricity bill would penalise a person who had no involvement in the violation.
The doctrine of proportionality, applied by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161, judgment dated 24 August 2017, delivered by a nine-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice A.M. Sapre, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, requires that any state action restricting a right must be the least restrictive means available.
Disconnecting electricity for an unpaid traffic fine fails that test. There are less restrictive measures already available: blocking registration renewal, impounding vehicles, and blacklisting on the Parivahan portal.
The Court discussed all of these.
The question is which of them can be implemented without fresh legislation, and which require Parliament to act.
