Back
Rebukes Enforcement Wing for Failing to Impose Rs.5,000 Fine Per Unauthorised Modification
The has pulled up the for not adhering to its own orders on fines for unauthorised vehicle modifications. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. expressed strong displeasure after learning that a Mahindra Thar fitted with six unauthorised lights was penalised with a consolidated fine of just ₹5,000, instead of the mandated ₹5,000 per alteration.
A Fine of ₹5,000 for Six Unauthorised Lights: Court's Displeasure
The case stems from proceedings initiated by the court to ensure road safety compliance. In an order dated , the court had specifically directed that owners of vehicles with unauthorised modifications—such as multi-coloured LED lights, strobe lights, or flashing name boards—must be fined ₹5,000 for each such alteration. However, when the submitted a report on regarding a Mahindra Thar bearing registration KL-03/AG-5155, it revealed that only a consolidated penalty of ₹5,000 had been levied for six additional lights.
“From the report dated of the , Kerala, we notice that, even after the repeated orders of this Court, the is imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/- only for a motor vehicle, which was fitted with six unauthorised additional lights,” the bench observed.
The vehicle had been equipped with ''Light Force Blitz 240 mm Halogen driving lights''—extreme low-range lights capable of causing temporary visual disorientation to oncoming drivers and pedestrians. The court noted that such high-intensity lights violate the ’s directions in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2025), which mandated a complete ban on unauthorised dazzling lights.
Wheel Spacers and Wide Tyres: A Persistent Safety Concern
Beyond the lighting issue, the court flagged the continued use of vehicles with wheels projecting laterally beyond the body, often achieved through wheel spacers and wide tyres. These modifications throw mud and water onto cyclists and pedestrians, posing a potential threat to their safety. The same Mahindra Thar, against which an had been generated as far back as , was still being operated with unauthorised fittings.
“We notice that no action is taken by the or Police against vehicles used in public place with the wheels projecting laterally beyond the protection afforded by the body of the vehicle,” the court stated, lamenting the enforcement gap.
The bench also took note of YouTube videos showcasing vehicles with after-market exhaust systems equipped with ''flame kits''—which store petrol in a tank inside the luggage compartment to produce visible flames—and vehicles assembled from parts of different vehicles for off-road use. One such video uploaded during the recent Kerala floods by the vlogger ''Thampis Vlogs'' appeared to seek public support for permission to use these non-compliant vehicles on public roads.
The Legal Framework: Only Permitted Fittings Allowed
Citing the ’s ruling in Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India (2012), the High Court reiterated that only lighting and light-signalling devices specifically provided for in the and are permissible. What is not specifically stated is deemed excluded. The court emphasised that no motor vehicle can be fitted with unauthorised lights, retro-reflectors, or other devices, and that the state government cannot exempt vehicles from these rules using .
Key Observations from the Bench
The court made several crucial observations:
“The use of such high intensity lights on motor vehicles poses a potential threat to the safety of other road users.”
“In view of the specific directions issued by this Court in paragraph 67 of the order of this Court dated ... the owner of such a vehicle has to be imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- per such alteration.”
“The and also the Police shall take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in paragraph 67 of the order of this Court dated .”
What Lies Ahead
The has been directed to file a further report on the action taken against the offending vehicle and overall enforcement compliance. The court has listed the matter for further consideration on , making it clear that any laxity in implementation will be viewed seriously. This order reinforces that road safety cannot be compromised by either vehicle owners or the agencies meant to enforce the law.
