Police Lack Power to Seize Vehicles in Drunken Driving Cases: Telangana High Court - 2026-02-06

Seizing Vehicles for Drunken Driving? Telangana High Court Reminds Police of Standing Limits

In a significant ruling that reinforces protections for vehicle owners, the High Court for the State of Telangana has once again clarified that police authorities lack the legal mandate to seize vehicles solely on the grounds of "drunken driving." The decision, delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice E.V. Venugopal in the case of Jangati Vijay vs. The State of Telangana , serves as a stern reminder that administrative overreach in traffic enforcement must remain within the bounds of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Spark of the Dispute

The petitioner, Jangati Vijay, approached the High Court after his Mahindra XUV 500 was seized by traffic police officials following an incident on July 10, 2025. The vehicle had been driven by a third party found to be under the influence of alcohol. Challenging the seizure, the petitioner argued that the police action was illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 300A. He contended that the detention of his vehicle deprived him of his property without the sanction of law, directly contradicting earlier directives issued by the High Court in the landmark W.P. No. 1647 of 2021 .

A Clash of Enforcement and Rights

The state’s defense, presented through the Assistant Government Pleader, pointed to the history of the vehicle involved. The responding officials noted that the vehicle had been linked to four separate drunk-driving cases, with the petitioner allegedly “knowingly handing over” the keys. The state argued that the police were merely exercising their duty to prevent recurring traffic crimes.

However, the legal question was not whether the driver had committed a crime, but whether the state police had the authority to hold the property indefinitely as a punitive measure for that crime.

The Court’s Reasoning: Upholding Precedent

Justice E.V. Venugopal looked to the comprehensive framework established by the previous coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 1647 of 2021 . The court reaffirmed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not empower police to seize vehicles in intoxication scenarios. Instead, the court mandated a specific protocol: 1. If a driver is intoxicated, they must be removed from the wheel. 2. A sober, licensed person should be allowed to take over. 3. If no one is available, the vehicle must be entrusted to a friend, relative, or placed in safe police custody—not seized as a penalty.

Key Observations

The Court underscored the following directives for police officers to adhere to:

> "If there is no other person other than the person who drives the vehicle in an intoxicated condition, then the concerned Police Officer or the intoxicated driver shall immediately inform any nearest relative or friend to take back the custody of the vehicle."

> "However, it is made clear that the Police do not have power to detain / seize vehicle on the ground that its driver/rider drove it in an intoxicated condition."

> "The Police or any other Official who has the custody of such vehicle shall release the same either to the owner or any authorized person on production of certificate of registration (RC) of the said vehicle, proof of identity and a valid driving license."

The Road Ahead

The High Court ordered the release of the petitioner’s vehicle, relying on the established doctrine that detention should not be used as an extra-judicial punishment. For law enforcement in Telangana, the ruling serves as a mandate to update their standard operating procedures. While traffic safety remains a primary concern for the state, the court has made it clear that protecting property rights and adhering to the Motor Vehicles Act are equally paramount.

For future litigants and car owners, this judgment reinforces that while drunken driving is a serious offense subject to prosecution under the law—including the filing of charge sheets before a Magistrate—the arbitrary seizure of private vehicles is a violation of the rule of law.