Dark Mode
Image
Logo

“No Citizen Should Be Subjected to Rude or Arrogant Conduct by Police Officers | Calcutta High Court Cautions Traffic Officer, Asserts Licence Seizure Requires Statutory Compliance and Procedural Safeguards”

“No Citizen Should Be Subjected to Rude or Arrogant Conduct by Police Officers | Calcutta High Court Cautions Traffic Officer, Asserts Licence Seizure Requires Statutory Compliance and Procedural Safeguards”

Isabella Mariam

 

The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee issued a cautionary directive to a traffic police sergeant while disposing of a writ petition concerning the seizure of a driving licence. The court held that the power to seize a driving licence under Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not unfettered and must be exercised strictly under the conditions enumerated in law. The court further directed the Deputy Commissioner (Traffic) to arrange for refresher training for all officers handling traffic duties across the State to ensure compliance with statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements.

 

The Bench recorded that the seizure in the present case was affected without providing a temporary acknowledgment and without verifying whether the petitioner intended to contest the prosecution. It observed that coercive practices like compelling immediate fine payment or obtaining signatures on compound slips without consent violate fundamental rights. While refraining from recommending disciplinary action due to the compounding of the offence and return of the licence, the court directed strict adherence to legal processes in future incidents involving traffic enforcement.

 

Also Read: Registered Will Raises Presumption Of Genuineness | Supreme Court Confirms Second Wife’s Exclusive Ownership, Says Burden To Disprove Validity Lies On Opponent

 

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a practicing advocate of the High Court at Calcutta, seeking relief against the seizure of his driving licence by a traffic sergeant. The petitioner was traveling on March 26, 2024, from Kakdwip, District South 24 Parganas, to his residence in Howrah, when his vehicle bearing registration number WB 12BP-7205 was stopped at the intersection of Khidirpur Road and A.J.C. Bose Road.

 

The petitioner alleged that he was wrongfully accused of over-speeding at 77 km/h, exceeding the permitted limit of 60 km/h. He denied the allegation and asserted that the matter should have been processed through the designated online portal to allow him the opportunity of a fair trial. According to the petition, Traffic Sergeant Palash Halder demanded a cash payment of Rs. 1,000, which the petitioner declined, insisting on paying through the online mode. Subsequently, his driving licence was seized without any justification or issuance of an acknowledgment slip.

 

The petitioner disclosed his identity as a practicing advocate and pointed to the Bar Association sticker displayed on his vehicle. Despite this, the respondent did not return the licence or provide a temporary authorisation slip under Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that, as per Section 206(2), seizure of a driving licence can only be made if there is a reason to believe the offender may abscond. He further referenced several previous High Court judgements that reinforced this statutory position.

 

Respondent No. 10 maintained that he had authority to seize the licence and was well-versed in the law. He reportedly refused to accept legal explanations from the petitioner and insisted on immediate action. The petitioner subsequently received an SMS from the Kolkata Traffic Police Portal, informing him of prosecution under Sections 112/183(1) and issuance of an online challan bearing compound number AK24938642.

 

An application for intervention was also filed by another advocate, who narrated an identical incident with the same officer on the same date and location, involving the same vehicle registration number. The intervener also refused to pay in cash, disclosed his identity, and had his licence seized. Allegedly, Respondent No. 10 made derogatory remarks and mocked the intervener. The intervener claimed he handed over Rs. 500 to avoid further humiliation.

 

Respondent No. 10 filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was caught speeding at 77 km/h, as recorded by a manual speed laser gun, while the limit was 50 km/h. He claimed he acted under Section 206(4) and attempted to persuade the petitioner to pay via UPI on the KTP Challan App. When that failed, he impounded the licence under Section 206(4) citing violation of Section 183. He also referred to amendments to the Act effective from October 1, 2020, and a Co-ordinate Bench decision in WPA 14318 of 2022 (Priyasha Bhattacharyya).

 

Respondent No. 5 filed a separate affidavit supporting Respondent No. 10, stating that CCTV footage showed reckless driving at 77 km/h. He confirmed that multiple drivers were prosecuted the same day and asserted that the police have authority to seize licences under certain sections.

 

In his affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner stated that a signboard at the location specified a 60 km/h speed limit. He pointed out that Rule 349 of the 1989 Rules permits fine payment within seven days and insisted that licence seizure requires fulfilling specific statutory conditions.

 

The petitioner submitted that the seizure was arbitrary and unlawful, as there was no "reason to believe" under Section 206. He criticized the failure to issue a temporary acknowledgment and argued that demanding cash or seizing a licence for non-payment is illegal. Multiple precedents were cited, including Dipankar Dutta (2004), Suryaneel Das (2020), and Priyasha Bhattacharyya (2022).

 

The State submitted that the licence had been returned and urged reconsideration of the petition. Both parties jointly requested the court to issue legal clarity.

 

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He recorded: "Therefore, a combined reading of Sub-Sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) indicates that a police officer cannot claim to have unfettered power to seizure of a driving licence by a police officer."

 

The court stated: "Seizure of driving licence by a police officer can be done only in three contingencies," namely when the documents are false, when the driver is likely to abscond, or when there is reason to believe that an offence under specified sections has occurred.

 

Justice Chatterjee explained: "The expression 'reason to believe' must be founded upon objective and verifiable facts. The phrase 'sufficient cause' implies that there must be concrete circumstances that would lead a prudent and reasonable person to draw a particular inference."

 

He added: "The seizure of a driving license is not an automatic process; it is contingent upon the fulfilment of certain prescribed conditions."

 

Regarding acknowledgments, the court noted: "Once a license is seized, the concerned authority is obligated to issue an acknowledgment to the driver. This acknowledgment serves as a temporary authorization."

 

On the issue of coercion and compounding of offences, the judgment recorded: "Any act of compelling a person to admit guilt, make payment of a penalty, or sign a compound slip constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution."

He further stated: "The production of the certificate of registration and the insurance certificate must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 130 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

 

The court clarified: "Although Section 206 uses the term 'impound,' the Act does not define this expression... Therefore, the authority to suspend, revoke, or impound the licence is vested solely in the licensing authority."

 

Commenting on the specific incident, Justice Chatterjee noted: "There is no evidence to show that any acknowledgment was issued to the petitioner at the time of seizure... A printed form, styled as a compound form and containing a column for the alleged offender to admit guilt, has been brought on record. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner's right to defend the allegations was violated."

 

The court held: "It would not be inappropriate to observe that a police officer in uniform can seize a driving licence only upon fulfilment of any of the conditions enumerated in Section 206 of the 1988 Act and the officer is bound to issue acknowledgment."

 

The judgment added: "This is not a police State; it is a welfare State governed by the rule of law. It must be clearly stated that, in a democratic society, even a person accused of a petty offence is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect."

 

While the court refrained from issuing punitive orders against the respondent officer due to the compounding of the offence, it directed: "I am inclined to issue a caution, directing him to strictly adhere to the due process of law in future, particularly in matters involving the seizure of driving licences... and to conduct himself with professionalism, sensitivity, and responsibility."

 

Also Read: Section 4(d) Applies Only To Continuing Employees | Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Reinstatement Claim And Holds Terminated Staff Not Entitled To Protection Under Central Universities Act, 2009

 

Further, the judgment directed: "The Deputy Commissioner (Traffic) is directed to arrange for such training and to ensure that, in every case of licence seizure, an acknowledgment is issued. Before compounding any offence, officers must ascertain whether the individual wishes to contest the allegation in trial and must strictly follow due process."

 

The petitioner was instructed: "The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the Secretary; Home Department, Government of West Bengal; the Director General of Police, West Bengal; and respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4 for their information and necessary compliance."

 

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Petitioner-in-person

For the Respondents: Mr. Wasim Ahmed, Sk. Md. Masud

 

Case Title: Subhrangsu Panda vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 9004 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2024

Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee

 

Comment / Reply From

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!