Supreme Court Expresses Grave Concern Over UP Act Abating Traffic Offence Trials, Questions Lack of Deterrence

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday raised serious questions about a Uttar Pradesh law that results in the automatic abatement of pending trials for motor vehicle offences, including serious non-compoundable ones like drunken driving. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan expressed concern that such a law removes the "sting of deterrence" and could lead to grave consequences on road safety.

The Court has directed the Secretaries of the Legal and Transport departments of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file affidavits within six weeks, providing a section-wise justification for the abatement of proceedings.

---

The Controversial Amendment

The Court was hearing an Interim Application in the long-pending writ petition concerning road safety (S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India). The application challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Act, 2023 . This Act effectively terminates all criminal proceedings pending before magistrates for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as of December 31, 2021.

The petitioner argued that the Act is arbitrary, incentivizes traffic rule violations, and is a major contributing factor to Uttar Pradesh leading the country in road accident fatalities. It was also contended that the state law is repugnant to the central Motor Vehicles Act.

Court's Stern Observations on Deterrence

The bench was particularly troubled by the Act's impact on non-compoundable offences, which are serious in nature and cannot be settled by paying a fine.

> "We are worried about one aspect of this Amendment... and i.e., deterrence," the Court observed. "If it is a non-compoundable offence, we wonder how could the State bring around an amendment and in one go tell the court concerned that the proceedings have stood abated. This means that the person who was booked for the offence of driving in a drunken condition or under intoxication goes scot-free."

The Court highlighted Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which pertains to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as a key example. It rejected the state's argument that an accused could still be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing an accident, stating it was "hardly a justification to support such Amendment Act."

The bench remarked on the need for stringent traffic regulation in India:

> "In a country like India, traffic is a big problem... Citizens are not so disciplined insofar as abiding by the traffic Rules and Regulations is concerned. In such circumstances, there has to be some deterrence so that a check remains on people indulging in offences relating to Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly, the youngsters."

Warning against using such legislation as a tool to merely clear judicial backlogs, the Court stated, "If we may not sound very harsh, this Amendment Act should not be in the form of a step to eradicate the arrears of pending cases in different courts of the State of U.P."

Other Key Directions

In the same hearing, the Supreme Court addressed several other applications related to road safety:

• Cashless Treatment for Accident Victims: An application seeking a nationwide scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims was referred to the Justice A.M. Sapre Committee . The Court has requested the committee to deliberate on the issue after hearing all stakeholders and submit its suggestions within six weeks.
  
  
• Pedestrian Infrastructure: Taking up an application for creating comprehensive pedestrian networks, the Court issued a notice and directed that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) be impleaded as a respondent to address issues related to footpath mapping and master plans in Mumbai.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on January 22, 2026.