The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling delivered on July 24, 2025, has reiterated that the power of a police officer to seize a driving licence is not absolute and can only be exercised under specific conditions enumerated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that seizure is not an automatic consequence of a traffic violation and requires the officer to have “reason to believe” that certain grave offences have been committed.
The court quashed any consequential case registered against the petitioner, an advocate, whose licence was seized for an alleged speeding violation. It issued a strong caution to the involved traffic sergeant and directed senior police officials to conduct refresher training for all traffic personnel to ensure adherence to legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by Subhrangsu Panda, a practicing advocate of the Calcutta High Court. According to the petition, on March 26, 2024, his vehicle was intercepted at the Khidirpur Road and A.J.C. Bose Road crossing by Traffic Sergeant Palash Halder (Respondent No. 10). The petitioner was accused of over-speeding, with his vehicle allegedly clocked at 77 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.
Mr. Panda alleged that the sergeant demanded a cash fine of Rs. 1,000. When the petitioner refused to pay in cash and insisted on the prescribed online procedure to contest the challan, the sergeant seized his driving licence without providing any reason or issuing the mandatory temporary authorisation slip under Section 206(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner contended that he informed the officer of his identity as an advocate and argued that seizure was legally impermissible unless there was an apprehension that he might abscond, a condition not met in his case.
The petition was supported by an intervention application from another advocate who narrated a strikingly similar incident with the same officer on the same day, alleging that the officer made derogatory remarks about advocates and coerced him into paying Rs. 500 in cash to retrieve his vehicle key.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Appearing in person, Mr. Panda argued that the seizure of his licence was “unlawful, arbitrary, whimsical, and actuated by mala fides.” He contended that the power under Section 206(4) of the Act is not automatic and requires the officer to have an objective “reason to believe” that an offence has occurred, not mere suspicion. He highlighted the failure to issue a temporary acknowledgment as a significant procedural lapse and argued that demanding cash fines on the spot is illegal. He cited previous High Court judgments, including Dipankar Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, to support his claim that the officer’s actions were unlawful.
Respondents’ Defence: The State and Traffic Sergeant Palash Halder filed affidavits in opposition. The sergeant claimed the petitioner was driving “recklessly at a dangerous speed” and that he acted under Section 206(4) of the Act, which was amended in 2019. He stated he gave the petitioner the option to pay the fine or have his licence impounded. He claimed the petitioner refused to pay and handed over the licence. The respondent argued that the amendment empowers police to seize licences for over-speeding and that his actions were in line with recommendations from the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety to deter dangerous driving in an accident-prone area. He categorically denied demanding a bribe from the intervener.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee undertook a detailed examination of the legal framework, particularly Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
On the Power of Seizure: The Court observed that a driving licence can be seized only under three specific contingencies:
- If there is “reason to believe” that documents like the licence or registration certificate are false (Section 206(1)).
- If there is “reason to believe” the driver may abscond or evade a summons (Section 206(2)).
- If the officer has “reason to believe” the driver has committed a serious offence under Sections 183 (speeding), 184 (dangerous driving), 185 (drunken driving), 189 (racing), 190 (unsafe vehicle), 194C (overloading), 194D (no helmet), or 194E (not allowing emergency vehicles) (Section 206(4)).
The Court heavily emphasized the legislative use of the expression “reason to believe.” It stated, “The phrase ‘sufficient cause’ implies that there must be concrete circumstances that would lead a prudent and reasonable person to draw a particular inference. The term ‘believe’ should not be confused with ‘suspect.’ This belief must be based on objective satisfaction rather than subjective interpretation or unfettered discretion.”
Based on this, the Court concluded, “a police officer cannot claim to have unfettered power to seizure of a driving licence.”
On Coercive Compounding and Fundamental Rights: The Court expressed deep concern over the practice of coercing citizens into compounding offences on the spot. It noted that printed compound slips with columns for admitting guilt were being used without first ascertaining if the alleged offender wished to face trial.
The judgment unequivocally stated: “It must be underscored that every alleged offender has the fundamental right to defend himself, and 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.”
On the Power to Suspend or Impound: The Court clarified that while Section 206 uses the word “impound,” the police officer’s role is limited to seizing the licence and forwarding it to the appropriate authority—either the court for cognizance of the offence or the licensing authority for disqualification/revocation proceedings under Section 19. “Therefore, the authority to suspend, revoke, or impound the licence is vested solely in the licensing authority that issued it,” the Court held, disagreeing with the sergeant’s contention that he had the power to impound the licence.
The Court also noted with disapproval the “recurring issues concerning the improper seizure of driving licences” which “consumed a considerable amount of judicial time.”
Decision and Directions
While the petitioner’s driving licence had been returned and the case compounded during the proceedings, the Court deemed it fit to issue directions to prevent future transgressions.
- Caution to the Officer: The Court issued a stern caution to Traffic Sergeant Palash Halder, directing him “to strictly adhere to the due process of law in future… and to conduct himself with professionalism, sensitivity, and responsibility in all interactions with members of the public.”
- Training for Police: The Court highlighted the need for “proper and refresher training for officers and staff… entrusted with traffic duties.” The Deputy Commissioner (Traffic) was directed to arrange such training to ensure awareness of legal provisions and judicial orders.
- Adherence to Due Process: The Court directed that in every case of licence seizure, an acknowledgment must be issued, and before compounding any offence, officers must ascertain if the individual wishes to contest the allegation in a trial.
Concluding with a powerful reminder of constitutional values, Justice Chatterjee remarked, “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.”
The writ petition and the connected application were disposed of with these observations and directions.
