In a hearing that stretched longer than expected-and felt unusually tense inside Court No. 8-the Supreme Court sharply examined the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to automatically terminate thousands of pending Motor Vehicles Act cases as of 31 December 2021. The bench, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, repeatedly questioned whether such sweeping abatement could ever be justified in a country already grappling with rising road fatalities.
Background
The matter reached the Court through a series of Interim Applications filed in the long-running PIL S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, originally aimed at improving road safety nationwide. Several applicants pointed out that the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Amendment Act, 2023 had quietly wiped out trials for a wide range of MV Act offences.
Read also: Patna High Court Grants Bail to Juvenile Accused of Firearm Possession After Finding No Proof
What caught the Court’s attention was the sheer impact: even non-compoundable offences-like drunk driving, overspeeding that causes harm, using unsafe vehicles-stood terminated without trial. “This has been happening for over four decades,” an applicant argued, pointing to repeated amnesty-style laws passed between 1977 and 2021.
Court’s Observations
Once arguments began, the bench moved fast. The judges openly expressed discomfort with the idea that serious traffic violators could walk away simply because the State cleared its backlog with a legislative eraser. Justice Pardiwala remarked, “If someone is prosecuted for drunk driving under Section 185-an offence that is non-compoundable-how can the State say the case has automatically abated?”
Read also: Gujarat High Court Upholds Minimum Pay Rights for Part-Time Worker After State’s Appeal
The bench noted that in many cases offenders had remained in the system for years, but delay alone couldn’t be grounds to make trials vanish. As one judge put it during the exchange, “Abatement in one stroke removes deterrence entirely. And deterrence in traffic offences is not some optional extra.”
The State tried to defend the law, suggesting that when an accident leads to injury or death, the offender would still face IPC charges like Section 279 or 304A But the Court was not convinced. “That illustration hardly justifies the amendment,” the bench observed, adding that dropping MV Act charges could still complicate or weaken connected IPC prosecutions.
The judges repeatedly brought up a concern that resonated with people sitting in the packed courtroom: rising road accidents and indiscipline on Indian roads. Young drivers in powerful vehicles, lack of fear of consequences, and enforcement gaps formed a recurring theme. “This cannot become a shortcut to reduce arrears,” Justice Pardiwala said, sounding visibly stern.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Agra Man After Nearly Three Years in Jail, Flags Long Delay in Hearing
Decision
At the end of the hearing, the bench directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file detailed, section-wise affidavits explaining how the State justified the abatement of every category of offence-especially the non-compoundable ones. The Court also clarified that it would closely scrutinize whether the amendment is arbitrary, unconstitutional, or undermines road-safety law itself.
Calling the consequences “extremely grave,” the Court granted six weeks to the State’s Legal Department Secretary and Transport Department Secretary to submit their explanations. The matter will now be taken up on 22 January 2026, with the Court expecting substantial and defensible reasoning-not general assurances.
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.P. (Civil) No. 295/2012
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Road Safety & Motor Vehicles Act Issues
Decision / Hearing Date: 20 November 2025
