When fines become fossils: a reflection on e‑challans, staff crunch and civic legitimacy
I read the recent reporting on e‑challan recovery in Mumbai with that mixture of civic concern and a private, slow-burning irritation I get when systems meant to produce public good start producing public pain instead. The article lays out the raw facts plainly: a large and growing backlog of unpaid e‑challenges, a one‑point‑eight lakh complaint load on the portal, thousands of rejected appeals, and plain, old manpower limits hamstringing recovery and compliance efforts E‑challan recovery hinderedby traffic police staff crunch.
Those are statistics, but statistics are shorthand for human choices and institutional priorities. I want to pull them apart, and then put them back together as something that could actually work for people.
What I see in the numbers
Enforcement should be about safety and civic trust. When it becomes mostly about unpaid accounts, the purpose has shifted. The article quotes officials saying unpaid fines are mounting and that manpower is a real constraint. In effect, the system issues tickets faster than it can resolve or recover them.
A large portion of fines target two‑wheelers — a segment with many low‑income riders, including delivery workers. If we push strict recovery without sensitivity, we risk turning regulated behaviour into a cycle of poverty for marginal earners.
Technology (e‑challans, portals and photographic evidence) has got us part way there. But tech without capacity to adjudicate, collect, or fairly appeal is brittle. The article reports 1.8 lakh complaints and more than 1.07 lakh rejections — which raises questions about error rates and meaningful review.
These are not new problems, but they are urgently urgent. We have shamefully good cameras and shamefully inadequate capacity to translate violations into just and effective outcomes.
A few hard practical truths
Technology scales fast; institutions do not. An automated ticket can be issued in seconds across a city. Recovering, adjudicating and — where appropriate — pursuing criminal or civil remedies requires people, law and patience.
Enforcement without fairness is repression. If people perceive fines as random, inaccurate, or impossible to contest, the legitimacy of the whole regime evaporates. That breeds non‑compliance and resentment.
Not all violations are equal. A reckless drunk driver is not the same as a delivery rider who missed a light and has two kids to feed. A one‑size coercive approach is unjust and, bluntly, politically expensive.
What I think needs to change — responsibly
I don’t believe in platitudes. Here are practical ideas, grounded in what I read and in what justice requires.
Make recovery smarter, not just harder
Prioritise top defaulters: start with the small fraction of motorists who account for large shares of unpaid fines. Targeted, visible recovery (home visits or certified notices) is efficient and sets a social standard.
Use administrative hooks: suspend certain RTO privileges (transfer of ownership, fitness certificates, etc.) when a driver has repeated unpaid challans — but with clear notice and a short cure period.
Fix appeals so they are quick, fair and low‑cost
The portal should be a true administrative tribunal first: upload evidence, allow easy rebuttal, and set strict internal timelines (a week, then a month for court referral). The current portal load shows appeals are mostly being rejected without a speedy, trustworthy process E‑challan recovery hinderedby traffic police staff crunch.
Create specially‑designated traffic fast‑track benches/courts with legislatively set timetables for resolution, as retired IPS officers in the article recommended.
Move from brute force to behavioural design
Trial SMS reminders, escalating in tone and consequence, with the ability to convert a fine into a payment plan. People respond to well‑timed nudges more than to threats.
Use immediate, low‑cost options: pay‑now discounts, instalment plans, or community service options for low‑income defaulters.
Protect the vulnerable
Identify low‑income offender cohorts (delivery riders, two‑wheeler owners below an income threshold) and offer debt‑sensitive collection regimes — step plans instead of seizure.
A humane policy prevents the enforcement system from being a hidden tax on the poor.
Staff smarter
The article’s central point is staff shortage. Additional boots on the ground help, but so does smarter capacity use: specialised recovery teams for big defaulters, field liaison officers who mediate with RTOs, and trained administrative adjudicators to reduce court referrals.
Train and rotate staff. Periodic rotation reduces opportunities for petty corruption; training reduces error‑rates in challan issuance and recovery.
Transparency and auditability
Publish challan issuance and appeal data in accessible formats. Error rates, geographic hot‑spots, and time‑to‑resolution should be public metrics. Transparency reduces suspicion and corruption.
Inter‑agency data integration
E‑challans should not live in isolation. Link traffic, transport, municipal and financial databases so that legitimate recovery can be enforced at points of financial transaction (e.g., penalties tagged to vehicle records; transfer blocks applied automatically after fair notice).
A word about coercion and legitimacy
Enforcement is a social contract, not a revenue scheme. Fines have an educative, dissuasive and corrective purpose. When we conflate them with shortfalls in revenue collection, we lose that higher purpose.
There is a virtue in discretion: one that can distinguish between systemic reckless behaviour and honest infractions. A legitimate enforcement system accommodates human frailty, offers easy redress, and proportionately punishes repeat or dangerous behaviour.
The ethical ledger: fairness, speed, mercy
I keep returning to these three words. Fairness in the process: ensure appeals are meaningful and errors corrected. Speed in the operation: reduce the backlog and the legal limbo. Mercy in execution: do not use traffic enforcement as a default collection tool for the city’s most vulnerable.
When a city issues a million electronic notices, it acquires a civic responsibility. It must be able to process them with justice and care.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
No comments:
Post a Comment