This is the thirty-sixth and last jurisdiction in this series, and it does something none of the other thirty-five did. Manipur’s Transport Department publishes the list of laws it works under — four instruments: the central Act of 1988, the central rules of 1989, and two of its own, both taxation instruments adapted from Assam laws of 1936. Section 200 is not in the list. Everywhere else we had to infer an absence from a silence; here the department states its own position. Its State Transport Policy then describes the enforcement method as mobile courts under a Judicial Magistrate First Class — a court, not a counter. And its police publish two sets of figures from which you can work out what enforcement has actually cost people: 2,35,347 cases and ₹2.02 crore between 1990 and April 2017, which divides to about ₹86 a case. We came to that number expecting to write a complaint. Then we checked the dates: that whole record predates the 2019 amendment, under which the commonest offence carried a ceiling of ₹100. A force averaging ₹86 against a ₹100 maximum was not undercharging — it was doing its job. What happened next is the actual story, and it is at the bottom of this page.
Thirty-five times we have asked an Indian government the same question — have you published what a traffic challan costs and who may take it — and thirty-five times we have had to work the answer out from what was and was not on a website.
Manipur hands it to you.
Not the schedule; there isn’t one. What Manipur hands you is something we had not seen anywhere else: a department that publishes the list of laws it operates under, so that for the first time in this series the gap is not an inference. It is a list, and you can read what is missing from it.
Here is the Transport Department’s own account of the legal framework it works within.
| Instrument | Whose | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | Central |
| 2 | Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 | Central |
| 3 | Manipur Motor Vehicles Taxation Act | Its own — adapted from Assam Act IX of 1936 |
| 4 | Manipur Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules | Its own — adapted from the Assam Rules, 1936 |
Two central instruments, and two of its own. Both of its own are about tax, and both are described as adaptations of another state’s law from 1936.
The provision that permits an offence to be settled by a payment instead of a prosecution, and that requires a state government to notify the amount and the officers who may take it, does not appear anywhere in the framework the department sets out for itself.
Nor does any notification made under it. Nor any schedule, any rank floor, or any figure.
We want to be careful about what that does and does not prove. A departmental web page is not an instrument, and a provision can bind a government whether or not that government lists it. Section 200 applies to Manipur as it applies everywhere; nothing here suggests otherwise.
What the list shows is what the department understands itself to be working under — and on its own account, compounding is not part of that.
A transport website with a notifications page, a documents library and a search box. We go through them, find no compounding schedule, and write that we could not find one.
Which leaves a reader with a reasonable doubt: perhaps it is there and we missed it, perhaps it sits in a part of the site we could not reach.
An affirmative statement of the framework, with four items in it. You do not have to trust our searching. You can read the list and see for yourself that the provision is not on it.
That is a much stronger foundation for a reader, and — as set out below — it also makes the information request far harder to brush off.
There is a check we apply on state pages in this series, and Manipur has effectively performed it for us.
The check is to open a state’s own motor vehicles rules and read the enabling line — the sentence beginning “in exercise of the powers conferred by sections…” — to see whether section 200 is among the sections the rules are made under. If it is not, the state never set out to regulate compounding through its rules, and everything depends on a separate notification. We found exactly that in Rajasthan and in Uttar Pradesh; on Punjab we could not obtain the rules text and the test failed.
We did not have to find Manipur’s rules and parse a preamble. The department published its framework and section 200 is not in it. Same answer, obtained in one step, from the department rather than from us.
Now the two instruments Manipur does have of its own, because their description is remarkable on its face.
The Manipur Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, described by the department as adapted from Assam Act IX of 1936.
The Manipur Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, described as adapted from the Assam Rules, 1936.
Both about the levy and collection of tax. Both adapted from a neighbouring state. Both from a statute book of 1936.
There is nothing improper about adapting another state’s law; it is ordinary practice, particularly for a state carved out and reorganised as Manipur was, and a tax Act that works is a tax Act that works. We are not criticising the adaptation.
We are pointing at the shape of what got adapted.
| Jurisdiction | What it has of its own |
|---|---|
| Arunachal Pradesh | A taxation Act — the only state statute its district transport office names |
| Sikkim | Its “Acts and Rules” page lists taxation items only |
| Ladakh | A predecessor State’s Act and the central rules |
| Lakshadweep | Names nothing at all |
| Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu | A Motor Vehicles Tax Act of 1974 |
| Punjab | A Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1924 |
| Manipur | Two instruments, both taxation, both adapted from Assam 1936 |
Seven jurisdictions. Every one of them has at least one motor vehicles instrument of its own, and in every case it collects money for the treasury. Not one of the seven has a published instrument limiting what may be collected at a roadside.
We abandoned the obvious one — that these are all small administrations — when Punjab landed in the column. It is not about size.
A tax instrument brings revenue in and somebody downstream is waiting for it. A compounding schedule constrains the people doing the collecting and nobody is waiting for it at all. Both need hours from the same small legal cell, and only one of them ever shows up in a report.
Nobody has to decide against the second. It simply never reaches the top of the list, for ninety years.
The full set is laid out with the other patterns on our state-by-state page.
In fairness, the same page sets out a substantial list of functions, and it is worth reading because of where enforcement sits in it — which is nowhere.
| Function | |
|---|---|
| Registration of vehicles | Core administration |
| Issue of driving licences and conductor licences | Core administration |
| Granting road permits for transport vehicles | Core administration |
| Collection of motor vehicle taxes and other revenue | Revenue — and this is what its own two Acts are for |
| Providing pool cars for ministers, state guests and dignitaries | Protocol |
| Administering, regulating and controlling motor vehicles under the central legislation | The general head |
| Any schedule of compounding amounts | Not mentioned |
| Any statement of which officers may compound | Not mentioned |
Permit conditions get a mention: where they are broken, the department refers to the imposition of penalties and to the suspension or cancellation of route permits. No amount is attached to either.
The structure, from the state’s own transport policy: a Director at state level, two Deputy Directors, and seven District Transport Offices. Above the day-to-day work sit a State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities, with the Manipur Transport Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Act of 1950.
That is a small department, and we say so without any sneer: seven district offices for a state of Manipur’s size and terrain is a real establishment, and it is larger than several of the union territories in this series have for the same job.
And now the sentence that explains why a compounding schedule may never have seemed necessary here.
The policy describes, among the department’s enforcement arrangements, the “conduct of mobile courts under the JMIC(Transport) for booking of motor vehicle offences”.
State Transport Policy, Manipur — Transport Department, Government of ManipurRead that again with the series in mind. The method of dealing with motor vehicle offences, as the state itself describes it, is a magistrate who travels.
A Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, with transport matters as the designated subject. Not a departmental officer, not a police rank — a judicial officer. A “mobile court” is that magistrate sitting somewhere other than a courthouse, so that cases can be disposed of where the enforcement is happening rather than months later in a district headquarters.
It is, on its own terms, a sensible arrangement for a state with difficult terrain and long distances between district courts. It brings the court to the road.
It exists so that an everyday traffic offence does not have to go before a magistrate. You pay a specified sum to a specified officer, and the offence is closed without a court ever being troubled.
Without it, every helmet offence in India would be a criminal case, which would be unworkable for the courts as much as for anybody else.
Routes the offence to a magistrate, and solves the inconvenience by moving the magistrate rather than by avoiding the magistrate.
It is coherent and it is lawful. It is simply the other road — and a state that has taken it has correspondingly less reason to notify a compounding schedule, which may be the whole explanation for the gap this page began with.
There is a parallel worth drawing. On the Jammu & Kashmir page we found the only jurisdiction in India that publishes the split between challans compounded and challans sent to court, and it was 68.8 per cent to a magistrate — which we called the opposite of what section 200 exists to achieve. There it looked like a system failing. Here the same shape appears to be the design.
A policy describing a mechanism is not evidence that the mechanism operates. So we looked, and the police records answer it.
1,057 cases dealt with across six court dates, with ₹1,32,290 compounded.
The word “compounded” is the police force’s own, not ours.
Traffic Control Police, Manipur PoliceSo yes. They ran, at least in that year, and the money taken in them was described as compounding — in a state that has notified no compounding schedule. Which is the central oddity of this page and we will come back to it.
We have figures for 2014 and no other year, so we are not going to say whether six dates was typical, increasing or declining. One year is one year.
Our standing rule across these pages is to look at the police before the transport department, because the police issue the paper and because they have surprised us repeatedly. In Manipur that rule produced the single most useful government page in the whole series.
The Traffic Control Police of Manipur Police publish, on one page: when the unit was founded, who commands it, its complete strength broken down by rank, a case table covering twenty-seven years, and a separate table of mobile court proceedings. We have not found another force in India that publishes all of that.
The unit records its own establishment in 1970, at MG Avenue in Imphal, after a period when traffic was regulated informally using personnel drawn from police stations. The Imphal West unit sits under the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West, and is headed by an officer of Deputy Superintendent rank, with an Inspector commanding the components below.
Here is the establishment, as published.
| Rank | Number |
|---|---|
| Assistant Superintendent of Police | 1 |
| Deputy Superintendent of Police | 1 |
| Inspector | 1 |
| Sub-Inspectors | 5 |
| Assistant Sub-Inspectors | 24 |
| Head Constables | 74 |
| Women Head Constables | 3 |
| Constables | 34 |
| Driver Constables | 13 |
| Women Constables | 16 |
| Village Defence Force | 173 |
| Home Guard | 38 |
| Total | 376 |
Publishing that at all is unusual. Publishing it to the last women head constable is, in our experience of thirty-six jurisdictions, unique.
Add the last two rows and the shape of the force changes.
| Village Defence Force | 173 |
| Home Guard | 38 |
| Auxiliary personnel, total | 211 |
| Published establishment | 376 |
| Auxiliaries as a share of the force | 56.1% |
Their numbers, our division. More than half of the people deployed on traffic duty in Imphal West are not regular police officers.
And the page is precise about what those 211 people do, in a sentence we are going to quote exactly rather than paraphrase, because the verb is the whole point.
“They also assist the officers to book offences under MV Act, 1988.”
Traffic Control Police, Manipur PoliceAssist. Not book. On the face of that sentence, the booking is done by officers and the auxiliaries support it — which is the correct arrangement and exactly what you would want a police force to say.
We have no information about how it works on any particular street, we are not suggesting otherwise, and nothing in this section is an allegation. What we are doing is noticing that Manipur has published the two facts side by side, and that together they land squarely on the question this whole series is about.
Section 200 requires a government to notify two things: the amount, and the officers who may take it. The second half has a hard consequence attached — money taken by somebody who was never specified is not a compounding. Whatever receipt exists, the statutory effect that closes the offence has not occurred.
In most states that is an abstract point. In a force where more than half the people on traffic duty are auxiliaries whose published role is to assist, the question of who is and is not an authorised officer stops being abstract.
And Manipur has notified nobody, because it has notified nothing.
One more piece of arithmetic, offered carefully.
Several states that have published a rank floor set it at assistant sub-inspector. Haryana does, and Rajasthan does outside its two commissionerates. If Manipur were to adopt the same floor, the number of people in this establishment who could compound would be:
| Assistant Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Inspector | 3 |
| Sub-Inspectors | 5 |
| Assistant Sub-Inspectors | 24 |
| Total at ASI and above | 32 |
Thirty-two people out of three hundred and seventy-six. This is arithmetic on a published table, not a statement of Manipur’s law — Manipur has published no rank floor, which is precisely the gap.
Compare Maharashtra, where a Police Constable may compound about ninety-five of a hundred and four offences, and West Bengal, where one offence is reserved to the Director of Transport alone. Section 200 leaves enormous room. Manipur has not said which part of it the state occupies.
A short aside, because this is the last page in the series and the pattern deserves stating once, properly.
Early on we adopted a working rule: look at the police before the transport department. The reasoning was narrow — the police issue the paper, so they are likelier to describe the thing a reader is holding. Thirty-six jurisdictions later it has turned into something broader.
Procedure and service. Fitness testing booklets, dealer workflow manuals, learner-licence flow charts, fee orders, scrapping advertisements, vintage registration notices.
Useful material, all of it about what you do when you come to them.
The ninety-seven row spot fines list in Andaman & Nicobar. The court directions on a Punjab district site. And here, an establishment table, a twenty-seven-year case series and a mobile court record on one page.
Material about what happens when they come to you — which is the subject of this entire series.
We are not sure why the asymmetry is so consistent. One guess is that a police unit publishing its own history and strength is writing for itself and for recruits, and ends up disclosing operational material almost incidentally — whereas a transport department writing for the public writes about services. Whatever the reason, the rule has paid for itself on page after page, and nowhere more than this one.
Now the part that makes this page the one we would keep if we had to keep only one.
From 1990 to April 2017: 2,35,347 cases, and ₹2,02,78,749 collected in fines.
Mobile courts, 2014: 1,057 cases across six court dates, with ₹1,32,290 compounded.
Traffic Control Police, Manipur PoliceTwenty-seven years of enforcement, with both the case count and the money. We have asked thirty-five other governments for some version of this and received it from exactly one district, in Arunachal Pradesh, covering one year.
| Cases, 1990 to April 2017 | 2,35,347 |
| Fines collected over the same period | ₹2,02,78,749 |
| Average per case | ₹86.17 |
Roughly 27 years and three months, which also works out at around 8,600 cases a year. The two input numbers are the police force’s; the division is ours, and we label it so because a figure a reader cannot attribute is a figure a reader cannot check.
We will be honest about the order in which we thought about this, because the mistake is instructive.
Eighty-six rupees a case. Against an Act whose smallest general penalty is five hundred. A state collecting a sixth of the minimum, over a quarter of a century.
It was a good paragraph and it was completely wrong.
The table runs 1990 to April 2017. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 commenced on 1 September 2019. So every single rupee in that twenty-seven-year total was collected under the old Act.
And under the old Act, the maximum for a general contravention under section 177 — the provision that catches most everyday offences — was ₹100, rising to ₹300 on a repeat.
| Figure | What it means | |
|---|---|---|
| Manipur’s average, 1990–2017 | ₹86.17 | Our division of their two numbers |
| Section 177 maximum, pre-2019 Act | ₹100 | The ceiling that actually applied across that whole period |
| Section 177 maximum, current Act | ₹500 | Did not exist until September 2019, two years after the table ends |
An average of ₹86 across 2,35,347 cases, against a ₹100 ceiling for the commonest offence, describes a force collecting close to the top of what the law then permitted.
That is not a scandal. On these figures it is a traffic police doing its job to the letter of the Act as it then stood, consistently, for twenty-seven years, and publishing the result.
We came to this page expecting to write a complaint and the arithmetic would not support one. So we are writing this instead.
One caution we will state rather than hide: an average across twenty-seven years and many sections is a blunt instrument. Some of those cases will have been costlier provisions and some will have been the ₹100 one, and we cannot see the mix. The figure is good enough to rule out gross undercharging; it is not good enough to prove anything finer, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
| Cases across six court dates | 1,057 |
| Compounded | ₹1,32,290 |
| Average per case | ₹125.16 |
Again their numbers and our division.
That sits above the ₹100 section 177 ceiling, which is exactly what you would expect from a caseload that includes provisions more expensive than a general contravention. The two independent figures are consistent with one another and with the Act as it stood. That consistency is itself a small piece of evidence that the numbers are real rather than nominal.
It is not about the eighty-six rupees. It is about everything after April 2017.
| Provision | Old maximum | Current maximum |
|---|---|---|
| General contravention, s.177 | ₹100 | ₹500 |
| Driving without a licence, s.181 | ₹500 | ₹5,000 |
| Driving while disqualified, s.182(1) | ₹500 | ₹10,000 |
| No insurance, s.196 | ₹1,000 | ₹2,000 |
| No helmet | charged under s.177 at ₹100 | ₹1,000 under s.194D plus three months of licence |
Between five and fifty times, depending on the provision — and one of them, the helmet offence, did not exist as a priced section at all before 2019 and now carries a disqualification.
Manipur has published no compounding amount under the new Act. Not a schedule, not a rank floor, not a figure. The provision under which it would do so does not appear in the framework its own department lists.
A state that was demonstrably operating correctly under the old law has published nothing at all under the new one, through the largest change to these penalties in thirty years.
Which is the quiet loss in all of this, and the thing we would most like somebody in Imphal to fix.
Manipur was the one state in India where a citizen could work out what traffic enforcement actually costs per case. That series ends two years and four months before the penalties changed — which is precisely the point at which the number would have become interesting.
Either the figures stopped being compiled, or they stopped being published. We have no way of distinguishing those from outside, and they are very different problems.
It is the fourth question in the information request we set out below, and it is the one we would least want a reader to drop. If you are going to spend ten rupees on one letter about Manipur, that is the letter.
One more set of the state’s own figures, because it decides which offences a reader here is actually likely to meet.
Buses numbered 2,677 and trucks 12,530, with the state projecting eight to nine thousand additional vehicles each year.
They are from 31 March 2013, so they are thirteen years old. On the state’s own projection the fleet is very substantially larger now.
And the document is a revised draft transport policy, not a final adopted one. We print its figures because they are the state’s own and we have no better, and we say what they are.
The two provisions in the entire Act that cost a driver three months of licence as well as money are both two-wheeler offences: section 194D for riding without a helmet, and section 194C for carrying more people than a two-wheeler may lawfully take.
In a vehicle population that is more than two-thirds two-wheelers and more than four-fifths personalised, those are not marginal provisions. They are the main event — and neither of them existed as a separately priced section when the police figures above were being compiled, because both arrived with the 2019 amendment.
The commonest serious offence in Manipur today is one that did not exist in the data the state published, is not priced in any state instrument, and carries a consequence — three months of licence — that nothing published in Manipur mentions at all.
Before leaving those figures, one point about the shape of them rather than the size.
A single table running continuously from 1990 to April 2017, with cases and money in the same place, is an unusual public record. It means somebody compiled the same two fields every year for more than a quarter of a century and kept them together, through changes of government, changes of commissioner, and the arrival of computers in the middle of it.
Any one year’s figure can be explained away. A continuous series cannot — it shows whether enforcement is growing or shrinking, whether collection tracks caseload, and whether a change in the law changed behaviour on the road.
That is the thing a published schedule cannot give you and a published series can. Of thirty-six jurisdictions, one has it.
Which is precisely why its stopping is the loss we keep returning to. Had the series continued four more years, it would now show exactly what happened in Manipur when Parliament multiplied the penalties — whether collections rose with the ceilings, whether caseloads fell, whether the new helmet provision was used at all. No other state in India could have shown that, because no other state kept the record.
| The check | Why it holds here | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is the provision on Parliament’s compoundable list? | That list is central and identical everywhere. Off the list means a magistrate — which in this state may well mean a mobile one |
| 2 | Is the sum within the current Act’s limit? | A state may pitch below the Act’s maximum and cannot pitch above it, whether or not it ever notified anything of its own |
| 3 | Does three months of licence come with it? | 194C and 194D. Nothing published in Manipur says so, and in a two-wheeler state these are the provisions most likely to arise |
With no state instrument in existence, the central Act is the whole of the written position in Manipur. These are our corrected figures — three of them we had printed wrongly earlier in this series and the full account sits on our state-by-state page.
| Group | Provisions and their outer limits |
|---|---|
| The person at the controls | No licence of your own, s.181 — ₹5,000. Driving during a disqualification, s.182(1) — ₹10,000. Handing the vehicle to somebody not entitled to drive, s.180 — ₹5,000 |
| The two-wheeler offences — the ones that matter most in a state two-thirds two-wheeler | Bare head, s.194D — ₹1,000 and three months of licence. One rider too many, s.194C — ₹2,000 and three months of licence |
| How you were driving | Over the posted limit, s.183 — ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 in a light vehicle. Ignoring a lawful direction, s.179 — ₹2,000 at most. Breaching the driving regulations made under s.118, s.177A — ₹500 to ₹1,000 |
| The vehicle itself | Failing the road safety, noise and air pollution standards, s.190(2) — ₹10,000 at most. Goods above the permitted weight, s.194(1) — ₹20,000 and a further ₹2,000 a tonne |
| The paperwork | Unregistered on a public road, s.192(1) — a band of ₹2,000 to ₹5,000 first time. No permit, s.192A — ₹10,000. No insurance subsisting, s.196 — ₹2,000, rising to ₹4,000 |
| Other people on the road | A seat occupied unbelted, s.194B — ₹1,000. Blocking an emergency vehicle, s.194E — ₹10,000 |
| Everything the Act forbids but does not price itself | s.177 — ₹500, and ₹1,500 where it has happened before. This is the provision whose ceiling was ₹100 throughout the twenty-seven years of figures above |
Every figure there is a ceiling rather than a price. Less may be taken; more may not be, in Manipur exactly as in Delhi. And the bottom row is the one to hold on to while reading the rest of this page: the provision that generated most of Manipur’s twenty-seven years of cases has had its maximum multiplied by five since those figures stopped.
Section 185, at the wheel after drink or drugs. Section 184, dangerous driving, with the single exception of its hand-held device limb.
Section 187, leaving a collision or withholding information about one. Section 188, abetting another person’s offence.
Section 193, unlicensed agents and canvassers. Section 197, making off with somebody else’s vehicle. Section 199A, an underage person at the controls.
Parliament fixes this list; no state can shorten or lengthen it. In Manipur, where the published enforcement model is already a magistrate’s court, a section off this list means that court with certainty.
Three provisions joined the compoundable list on 13 January 2025, when section 200(1) was replaced in full: 177A, 192B(3) and 201. The replacement text is reproduced on our Nagaland page. In most states that left an existing schedule three rows short; here it changed nothing at all.
Riding without a helmet under 194D and overloading a two-wheeler under 194C each cost three months of licence on top of the money. In the entire country only two published schedules say so, and Manipur has no schedule to say it in.
It also travels. The licence is an ordinary Indian driving licence and the disqualification is recorded nationally, so three months lost in Imphal is three months lost everywhere. If you are settling one of those two provisions, that is the question to put at the counter, and it is worth a short written application if nobody will answer it.
| Step | What you are looking for | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Find the section number | Everything follows from it. No section printed at all is itself worth raising |
| 2 | Check it against the current Act | Not against any figure you have seen quoted from before September 2019, which in this state is most of what exists |
| 3 | Check whether the provision is compoundable | If not, a court deals with it — possibly a mobile one |
| 4 | Note whether a magistrate is involved | A mobile court is a court process, with different consequences from a counter payment |
| 5 | Ask whether three months attaches | 194C and 194D. The commonest serious provisions in a two-wheeler state |
| 6 | Keep the receipt, section written on it | With no state schedule, that paper is the only account of the sum and the provision |
This is specific to Manipur and worth a paragraph of its own, because the advice differs from the rest of this series.
A judicial magistrate sitting outside a regular courthouse to dispose of motor vehicle cases. It is a court: what happens there is a judicial order, not a counter receipt.
The police records show those sittings producing compounding — 1,057 cases across six dates in 2014 — so an outcome there may still be a payment that closes the matter.
Attend. Take the challan, the registration certificate, the licence, the insurance and the pollution certificate, whether or not you think they are in issue.
If the section is one that cannot be compounded, this is a criminal matter in front of a magistrate and it needs an advocate rather than a letter. That is the line, and it is set out at the end of this page.
Four questions, and the second of them is available nowhere else in India. An information request carries a statutory fee of ten rupees.
| Ask | Why in those words | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whether any notification under section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been issued for the State of Manipur, with its number and date | The standard question, which every page in this series asks |
| 2 | Why section 200 does not appear among the four instruments the Department publishes as its legal framework, and whether that framework is accurate | The question only Manipur allows — it asks the department about its own published document |
| 3 | The officers or authorities, by rank, permitted to compound, and whether Village Defence Force and Home Guard personnel are among them | The forgotten half of section 200, made concrete by a force that is 56 per cent auxiliaries |
| 4 | Whether the Traffic Control Police case and collection figures have been maintained beyond April 2017, and if so, for which years | The one series in India that let a citizen calculate this, and it stops before the amendment |
Question two is worth dwelling on, because across thirty-six jurisdictions this is the only place it could be asked.
“Is there a notification?” invites a one-word answer, and a public information officer who checks one file and finds nothing may write no in perfect good faith while an instrument sits in another office.
“Your own published framework lists four instruments and section 200 is not among them — is that list accurate?” is a different question. It is about a document the department itself produced, and the answer either confirms the gap on the record or produces the instrument that closes it.
That is only possible because Manipur published the list. Thirty-five other governments did not, and the request there has to go fishing.
Where a reply has to be answered rather than merely obtained, that is a drafted reply, and for the plainer asks there is a simple application.
If the thing happened and the figure is inside what the current Act permits for that provision, settle it. Collect the receipt. Write the section number on it in your own hand. File it.
None of the analysis above makes a correct demand wrong. A state’s failure to notify a schedule is a problem with the state, not usually with your particular piece of paper.
The gap bites in three places: the sum exceeds the Act’s ceiling; the provision was never compoundable; or you are being dealt with by somebody whose authority to take money nobody can show you. In Manipur the third is less theoretical than elsewhere, and it is still a small minority of cases.
Better than we expected, and we would rather say so plainly than end thirty-six pages on a cheap note.
Notify a compounding schedule under section 200, at any point, including through the largest revision of these penalties in thirty years.
Publish any rank floor, in a force where more than half the people on duty are auxiliaries.
Carry its own enforcement figures past April 2017.
Published the legal framework it works under honestly — including the part that shows what it has not done.
Published twenty-seven years of enforcement data with both halves of the arithmetic in it.
Published its traffic police establishment down to the last head constable, and stated precisely what its auxiliaries do and do not do.
And, on the numbers it published, operated close to the statutory ceiling under the Act as it then stood.
It is worth setting this against the rest of the series, because it cuts directly against the assumption we started with.
| The thing | Who published it |
|---|---|
| What enforcement actually collects, per case | Manipur (27 years) and one district of Arunachal Pradesh (one year). Nobody else |
| The full composition of the traffic police establishment, by rank | Manipur. We found no other |
| The department’s own list of the laws it operates under | Manipur. Several name an Act or two; none sets out a framework you can read an absence off |
Three disclosures no large state in this series made, from a state with seven district transport offices. Whatever else the record shows, it does not show an administration trying to be hard to read.
Thirty-six jurisdictions, and this is the last of them.
| Group | Example | What a citizen finds |
|---|---|---|
| A schedule that is there and still right | Andaman & Nicobar, Chandigarh | Open it, find the row, compare |
| A schedule that outlived its Act | Sikkim, Telangana | A row to compare against, and then doubt about whether the row still binds |
| Silence, with nothing behind it either | Kerala, Lakshadweep | Very little comes back; the central Act is all there is |
| Silence that something else fills | Punjab | A full page of results, and every one of them from another country |
| Nothing published, and the state says so, and shows its working | Manipur — the only one | No schedule — but a stated framework, an enforcement model, and twenty-seven years of figures |
Every other row in that table describes what a government failed to give a reader. The last row is the only one that also describes what a government gave.
We started this series with a simple proposition: states that publish their compounding schedules are being straight with citizens, and states that do not are not. Thirty-six pages later that is too crude in both directions, and Manipur is the clearest proof of it.
Sikkim published forty-four priced rows and they are from 2010, against an Act rewritten in 2019. The document exists and misleads.
A schedule can be published, maintained, and still be the wrong rulebook.
Manipur published no schedule and published, instead, its framework, its enforcement model, its full establishment and its collections for twenty-seven years.
You can learn more about how traffic enforcement actually works in Manipur than in almost any state that has a schedule. The gap is real. It is not concealment.
The right question is not “did they publish the table?” It is “can a person who has been asked for money find out whether that was the right amount, and whether the person asking was entitled to ask?”
A schedule is the most direct way to answer it. It is not the only evidence a government can give, and the absence of one does not settle how open that government is.
On that question Manipur still fails — nobody here can check a figure. But it fails while having told you more than most of the states that pass.
Because of a mistake of ours, the same one that delayed Punjab, and it is worth recording at the end of a series rather than quietly omitting.
Early on we tried to reach several state transport websites and could not. We wrote that down accurately at the time, with an explicit caution that it meant not reachable from here and not does not exist.
Over the following weeks that careful note hardened into a single word, and two states kept the label long after every other state on the same list had been reached and written up. Nobody re-tested the condition; we just kept repeating the label.
There was never an obstacle here. The material on this page came from a state portal, a police website and a policy document, and all of it was sitting there the whole time.
A failure to reach a source is a fact about one moment, never a property of the source. Sites move, redirect, are rebuilt and come back. Any note saying “could not reach” has to be re-tested before it decides anything, and a label that outlives its evidence is a rumour you are telling yourself.
Every correction we have had to publish across these thirty-six pages is collected in one place on our state-by-state page. This is the last of them.
It cannot give you a Manipur compounding figure, because the state has never notified one — and for once we can say that with confidence rather than as a failure of searching, because the department publishes the list and the provision is not on it. It cannot tell you what enforcement has collected since April 2017. It cannot tell you Manipur’s rank floor, because none is published. And it cannot tell you whether the 2014 mobile court pattern held in other years.
What it can do is give you the current Act’s ceiling for your provision, Parliament’s own list of what a counter may settle, the two provisions that cost three months of licence, a warning that a mobile court is a court, and an information request that quotes the department’s own published framework back to it.
As on every page in this series, the things we could not get to are named rather than left out. Without them a reader has no way of telling how far to trust what is here.
The Transport Department’s own website. We could not load it by either of the two routes available to us. One of those routes reported a certificate problem — but our own connection runs through a proxy that reissues certificates, so we cannot honestly attribute that to the site and we are not going to. All we can say is that we could not reach it, and that everything on this page therefore comes from other government sources: a state portal, the police website and the transport policy document.
Any notification under section 200 for Manipur. Not found — and, unusually, not listed by the department either.
The text of the Manipur Motor Vehicles Rules. We have the department’s description of its framework but not the rules themselves.
Traffic Control Police figures after April 2017. The published table stops there.
Mobile court figures for any year other than 2014.
The traffic police establishment outside Imphal West. The strength table covers that unit only, so the 376 figure is not a state total and we have not treated it as one.
Any current accident, fatality or challan statistic for Manipur. We found no government source we could read, and we have taken nothing from commercial challan sites — one came up in search and we did not use it — or from encyclopaedias.
From the Transport Department’s own published statement of its functions and legal framework on a state government portal. From the State Transport Policy published by the Government of Manipur, a revised draft of June 2013, which we have labelled as a draft everywhere we rely on it. From the Manipur Police Traffic Control Police page, for the establishment table, the case figures and the mobile court record. From the central Act for every figure in every statutory table. And from our own arithmetic, done on the government’s own published numbers and labelled as ours wherever it appears.
No commercial challan or rate-list website was used for anything, here or on any of the thirty-five pages before it.
A three-question test that does not depend on how frightened you are, an honest list of when the answer is no, what the Advocates Act actually restricts, why a power-of-attorney holder cannot argue your case, and who is entitled to free legal aid.
ReadHow to verify that somebody is really enrolled, why specialisation by forum beats seniority, the Bar Council rules that protect you before you sign anything, the conflict question to ask on day one, and the question almost nobody asks.
ReadWhy no honest Indian site publishes an advocate’s fee, the fee structures actually used, why “no win no fee” is not permitted here, what is a fee and what is an expense, and how to agree it so there is no argument later.
ReadWhat to take, in what order, what to say about the facts that hurt you, what a vakalatnama actually does and how long it lasts, what to write down before you leave, and what should happen in the first week afterwards.
ReadWritten for both sides. Why a single line at three thousand five hundred rupees decides which of two separate systems your tenancy is in, the closed list of grounds under Section 14, the first-default protection most tenants never hear about, the summary procedure under Section 25B that is lost by doing nothing, notice under Section 106, and why changing the locks is the worst thing a landlord can do.
ReadThree different suits wear one name. Whether you are asking for a share, for possession, or for a document to be undone — and why each has a different clock. Self-acquired against coparcenary, a daughter’s right by birth, why a mutation entry is not ownership, why GPA and will papers are not a conveyance, and the two decrees a partition suit ends in.
ReadOne “no” at the counter is not where the law ends. The three doors, in the order the law gives them — the police station, the DCP under Section 173(4), the Magistrate under Section 175(3) with its new affidavit condition — plus the complaint case where the accused is now heard first, and why the officer refusing you is sometimes right.
ReadThe distinction everything rests on, and why it is decided on the medical record by another doctor rather than by how bad the outcome was. Why the complete record is the first step and must be obtained before you complain, consent as a separate and often stronger ground, and the three roads — compensation, prosecution and professional discipline — of which only one pays.
ReadThe one law that can take back property you already signed away. Section 23 and what Urmila Dixit (2025) settled about eviction and possession, the Maintenance Tribunal before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the ceiling on the monthly amount and the route that has none, whether you may actually bring a lawyer, and where a daughter-in-law’s right of residence fits.
ReadFees, transfer certificates, admission and expulsion — and why the door that opens is the Directorate of Education rather than a court. What the Delhi High Court held in May 2026 about a hike at the start of a session against one imposed mid-session, why a certificate cannot be held against your dues, and how to ask the regulator for something it can actually do.
ReadFive different papers, five different answers to “what if I do nothing”. A private legal notice against a civil summons, a criminal summons, a tribunal notice and a police notice; the thirty days that is directory and the hundred and twenty that is not; ex parte orders and the thirty days to undo one; and why complying with a Section 35(3) police notice now protects you.
ReadWhat a family does in the first twenty-four hours, and the two rights nobody will offer you: default bail under Section 187(3), which turns on sixty or ninety days rather than the merits and dies the day the chargesheet is filed, and release under Section 479 after half the maximum sentence — a third for a first-time accused. Plus sureties, conditions, and why a bail order is not release.
ReadThe court is not deciding which parent is right. It is deciding one thing — the welfare of the child — and that re-sorts every argument you were planning to make. Custody, guardianship and access are three different things; Section 6(a) gives a starting position for a child under five and not a rule; joint custody is a Law Commission recommendation and not a statute. Plus interim orders, access as the child’s right, parental alienation, passports and travel, and what to do when an order is broken.
ReadGetting the content taken down and getting the person acted against are two different cases, with different addressees and different clocks. The Grievance Officer’s twenty-four hours and fifteen days, the twenty-four hour rule for nudity and morphed images, the thirty-day appeal almost nobody uses, why Shreya Singhal explains the wall you hit, Zero FIR, preservation requests, and the Section 63(4) certificate that decides whether your screenshots count at all.
Read“The marriage is over” is not a ground — Parliament never made irretrievable breakdown one, and no Family Court can act on it. So the case turns on what you can PROVE. The Section 13 grounds as they actually read, what cruelty means after Samar Ghosh and what it does not, desertion and its two years, the one-year bar, and why Section 23(1)(a) destroys a manufactured ground.
ReadThe danger is rarely a confrontation — it is a false complaint at a police station, and from that moment the State does the family’s work for it. What answers it is her own statement before a Magistrate. Plus the protection petition, why consenting adults are covered married or not, the three-day rule when you move, and the honest Delhi position on the thirty-day notice. For adults only.
ReadThe paper in your hand picks your procedure — not the amount, and not how obviously you are in the right. On a cheque, a note, a written contract or a guarantee, Order XXXVII gives you a suit in which the defendant has no right to defend. Plus the three-year clock, the written acknowledgment that restarts it, why a cheque bounce complaint is not a recovery suit, the mandatory mediation that gets commercial suits rejected, and why winning is not the same as being paid.
ReadTwo questions come before the facts: which door, and how much time is left. Section 6(1) built the Local Committee for the two situations in which the office route is useless — fewer than ten workers, or a complaint against the employer himself. Section 9(1) starts a three-month clock from the last incident, extendable by three, and recent decisions treat the outer edge as a wall. Plus who counts as an employee, what counts as a workplace, the conciliation that may not end in money, the inquiry’s civil-court powers, and why Section 28 means the committee and the police are not an either–or.
ReadWhat your building legally IS decides the case, not what you are complaining about. Most Delhi RWAs sit under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 — a registration statute with no power to levy maintenance, fine a member or recover anything, so the charge rests on the bye-laws and is enforced only by suit. A co-operative society goes to the Registrar under Section 70, where an election challenge dies in thirty days. And a building under the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 has a Deed of Apartment, parking inside the statutory definition of common areas, dues as a charge on the flat, and model bye-laws that make elections and audit compulsory.
ReadA challan is two different things wearing one name. Some can be paid and closed; the rest cannot be paid at all, because the compounding list takes in Section 184 only for handheld phone use and leaves Section 185 out altogether. The notice is not a bill either – it is issued under the section headed “Restriction on conviction”. Plus what paying on the Virtual Court actually means, why the “three challans” suspension rule does not exist, and what to do when challans keep arriving for a car you sold years ago. No penalty figures, and the page says why.
Read“Court” on a challan does not mean a trial. It means a Magistrate now holds the file, and that the next click is a plea rather than a payment. How to find the case – and why a driving licence number will never find it. Why the summons only appears after you act. What contesting actually does, and the published figure showing how few people do it. The Act’s own short route, why traffic offences are expressly NOT petty offences under the new code, when you must attend in person, what the court can do to your licence, and what five official sources say – and do not say – about ignoring it.
ReadA licence goes out of two different doors – a government office under Section 19 and Rule 21, or a courtroom on conviction – and the grounds, the appeal and the way back differ for each. The appeal is thirty days from RECEIPT, and we found no provision for condoning delay. A High Court has quashed a suspension that named no ground and recorded no satisfaction. The licence does not simply revive when the period ends: the Act wants a refresher course, or a fresh test and a medical certificate. And almost nobody knows you can apply to have a disqualification removed after six months. Plus why there is no three-challan rule and no points system in force.
ReadEverybody argues “it was not me”. The strongest ground is usually not your evidence at all – it is whether the challan complies with the rule the government wrote for issuing it. Rule 167A requires the camera to carry a yearly approval certificate, requires the challan to be accompanied by FIVE named things including a photograph showing the offence AND the plate, and requires the notice to be sent within fifteen days. And Rule 167A(10) gives an owner who was not driving an express right to say so – a right the portal does not implement. Plus Delhi’s own complaint form, the cloned-plate gap nobody fills, and why Section 209 is a far weaker shield than people think.
ReadWe read the registration chapter of the Act section by section, and the answer is not the one anybody wants: there is no provision by which a seller can take himself off the register without a transfer being completed. Transfer needs the buyer. Cancellation is about the vehicle – destroyed, beyond repair, removed out of INDIA, not out of the State. And the challans are the smallest part of it: the Supreme Court has held that a registered owner who purported to sell but still appears in the records is not absolved of liability for compensation. Form 29 is necessary and has not been shown to be sufficient. One rule prevents all of it.
ReadThe counter says clear the challans first, and nobody says under what. We went looking. The Act has no such provision at all – not in section 48, not in section 50, not in fitness or permits. The power is in a rule, and the rule is narrower than the practice: ninety days, the offender’s own licence or the vehicle named in the challan, and permit, fitness and tax expressly left out. A 2018 ministry circular goes further and cites no authority for doing so. Then on 28 September 2026 the Supreme Court directed much of it anyway. Plus the Kerala judgment holding that a transfer after a death is not a transaction at all.
ReadThe section is headed “offences by juveniles” and the person it makes guilty is an adult: the guardian of the child or the owner of the vehicle, and those can be two different people. ₹25,000 and up to three years, the registration cancelled for twelve months, and no licence for the child until twenty-five. The part nobody prints: Section 199A is not in the compounding list, so it cannot be paid at a counter and must go to court. Plus the complete exemption in sub-section (3), the written representation the Act requires before a registration is cancelled, and why the Pune case was not this section at all.
ReadTwo things are said everywhere about this and both are wrong. It cannot be paid online – Section 185 is absent from the compounding list, so a court challan is issued and a magistrate decides, which the Delhi Traffic Police has itself confirmed. And six months in prison is the maximum, not the outcome: the reported figures show custody in under a tenth of cases, for days. The consequence that is real, and that nobody prints, is the licence – on conviction, disqualification of at least six months, and the provision carries no “special reasons” escape at all.
ReadSince the transport strike of January 2024 every page on this subject has been built on a provision that has never been brought into force. The government’s own release excluded Section 106(2) when the new criminal laws commenced, and the Delhi High Court confirmed in July 2026 that it was still unnotified. The charge in practice carries five years and is classified as bailable. Plus the twenty-four hour reporting window almost nobody knows about, and the ₹2 lakh claim the Supreme Court found only 205 families in the whole country made in a year.
ReadAcross nine pages on challans and road cases we kept saying this is a court application and not something to settle at a police station, and kept not explaining how. This is that page. The old provision had no deadline at all – its replacement gives the court fourteen days to record and photograph the vehicle and thirty days to order its release, and a High Court enforced that in August 2026. Plus why the registration certificate is not the whole answer, how much the bond can lawfully be, and the special statutes where the Magistrate has no power at all.
ReadOur first state page, and the state-specific part is narrower and stranger than people expect. Rajasthan’s notification binds officers by rank and by area: a Head Constable may compound inside the Jaipur and Jodhpur Commissionerates, an Assistant Sub-Inspector everywhere else. The state’s own motor vehicles rules contain no compounding provision at all. Plus the thirty-day appeal to the RTO, a quarter of every compounding fee going to a non-lapsable road safety fund, who really owns the highway cameras, and why a seized vehicle here is so often a mining matter.
ReadSearch “Punjab e-challan” and almost everything you get belongs to Pakistan — the Punjab Safe Cities Authority in Lahore, a row of .pk sites, and commercial services. Not one Indian government result. The reason is that Punjab publishes almost nothing: its Transport Department’s whole notifications page holds nine items, four of them single scanned pages 11, 12, 16 and 17 of one user-charges file, and no section 200 schedule at all — while its own menu sends you to the centre. One date does exist: 19 December 2019, so here alone you can ask for the notification by name. Plus three two-second tells, the Gurmukhi-versus-Shahmukhi check, and why Chandigarh — whose Administrator is Punjab’s Governor — wrote the best schedule in India.
ReadOne question put to thirty-four Indian states and union territories: have you published what a challan costs, and who may take it? Five published a schedule after the 2019 amendment, seven are still running documents older than it — the oldest from 2008 — and around twenty publish no amount at all. In the whole country only two schedules tell you that a helmet offence costs three months of your licence. The full comparison table with every jurisdiction linked, the four jobs a schedule actually does, the patterns we did not expect — and every correction we have had to publish about our own pages, in one place.
ReadThe only jurisdiction in this series that was created while the amended Act was already running. Two Union territories merged on 26 January 2020, but section 17 of the Merger Act kept both rulebooks alive in their own halves — so the real question is whether Daman runs on one schedule and Silvassa on another. Neither exists. The registration mark was unified in four days; the municipal regime in eight months; the compounding schedule not in six years. The Transport Department publishes four documents, the whole legal library two entries, the police force’s rules shelf one reservation roster — and the traffic police page never once uses the word challan.
ReadThe smallest jurisdiction in this series, and the first where we had to ask whether our own question is fair. No two inhabited islands are joined by a road. The police run seven coastal security stations and publish no traffic page. The Department of Road Transport names no Act and no Rules at all — the only one of thirty-three — and a single Motor Vehicle Inspector is Licensing Authority for the whole territory. No section 200 notification could be found. We argue it both ways and then say where we come down: the principle holds, the scale does not — and a one-page notification would settle it.
ReadThe A&N Police publish a ninety-seven row spot fines list — the largest and most current schedule in this series. It marks which offences go to court instead of a counter, notes where the licence is to be seized, and prices the one compoundable limb of section 184 at ₹3,000 while sending the other five to court in the same row. Its notification is dated 22 days after the 2019 amendment — faster than Assam, which we had called the fastest. And row 17 of it caught three wrong figures in our own tables, which this page sets out in full.
ReadOn 25 August 2026 Ladakh notified S.O. 250, directing twenty per cent of everything collected by compounding traffic violations into a road safety fund — non-lapsable, audited by the CAG, and spent on signage, black spots, driving test tracks and ambulances. Puducherry promised exactly this in 2015 and never did it. The same notification calls a compounding fee one taken by “the officers authorised under Section 200” — so that authorisation exists, and we still could not find it. A territory that has published where a fifth of your money goes, and not what the money is.
ReadIn 2023 this territory recorded 13,72,501 traffic challans — 4,28,609 compounded and 9,43,892 sent to court. That is sixty-nine per cent going to a magistrate, which is the opposite of what section 200 exists to achieve, and no other jurisdiction in this series publishes the split at all. We could find no compounding notification here. The Act itself only arrived on 31 October 2019 — sixty days after the amendment — so this is the one place in India that has never known the pre-2019 Act. And in Srinagar 835 cameras now issue challans with no published procedure, for the one offence that costs you your licence.
ReadSikkim publishes the region’s fullest compounding schedule — forty-four priced rows in four columns, graded by repeat offence and by vehicle class — made by Notification No. 121/MV/T dated 29 July 2010. Sixteen years on it still prices a general contravention at ₹100, has no helmet row at all because the section did not exist, and carries two figures now below the statutory minimum. Meanwhile the same department runs AI cameras with a ten-day cure window and a written promise to pay you double if the machine is wrong — the most citizen-protective provision we have found anywhere. The newest enforcement in India, pointed at the oldest price list.
ReadArunachal publishes no compounding schedule, and the only state statute its district transport office names is a taxation Act. But one district did something no government in this series has done: it published what it collected. Lohit reported 3,782 challans and ₹42,18,800 in 2025 — which divides into about ₹1,115 per challan, the first real figure we have had for what is actually being charged on a road rather than what a document says it should be. And behind it sits Article 371H, under which this State’s Governor alone carries a personal responsibility for law and order — a question we raise and deliberately leave open.
ReadTripura publishes twenty-six no-parking zones and twelve parking zones in Agartala, each with a notification number and date; a tax penalty scale; and eleven amendments to its Motor Vehicles Rules, the latest dated five days before the central compoundable list changed. It publishes no compounding amount at all — and its Notices link points at nothing while its Acts link points at a file that will not open. Then its accident figures changed our mind: deaths fell forty per cent in two years while crashes fell nine. That is survival, not prevention — and it forced us to say plainly what a published schedule is actually for.
ReadPuducherry left us asking who the “State Government” is in a Union territory. Chandigarh answers it in practice: its notification of 6 December 2019 says the section 200(1) power is exercised by the Administrator — who since 1984 is, ex officio, the Governor of Punjab. What follows is the best compounding notification we have read: 30 rows, five columns, a column naming the only three authorities who may compound, the three-month licence disqualification written in (the first schedule in the series to do it), section 206(4) on the speeding rows, and section 184 limited in brackets to handheld devices. One problem: the police website misquotes it in four places, including a date fourteen months in the future.
ReadSection 200 gives the compounding power to “the State Government”. Puducherry is a Union territory — and the General Clauses Act says that in a Union territory those words mean the Central Government, while a Council of Ministers advises an Administrator whose disagreements go to the President. We set the provisions out and leave the question open. Underneath: the territory’s rules are not made under section 200 (second jurisdiction proved on the instrument’s face), two different monthly rates sit under one ₹100 cap, the police table of 95 offences carries pre-2019 figures — and the territory’s own 2015 policy recorded a death rate double the national average and promised to notify penalties and fund road safety from compounding.
ReadA compounding arrangement has two halves — what an offence costs, and who may settle it for which offences. Most states publish one. Mizoram publishes both, and they do not match. Its penalties page, updated February 2025, is the only state document in this series that names section 177A, and the only government page that prints the three-month licence disqualification under 194C. Its compounding notification is from 1 August 2018 — still listing section 191, which 2019 removed, and listing nothing 2019 inserted. So a helmet is priced at ₹1,000 on one government page and absent from the other. Plus the only rank floor in India with a uniform condition on it.
ReadTwenty-one pages read a state’s schedule. Nagaland does not publish one — but it published something no other state government did: a notice telling the public that section 200 itself had been replaced. Serial 26 of the Schedule to the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, commenced by S.O. 227(E) on 13 January 2025, substituted section 200(1) and added 177A, 192B(3) and 201 to the compoundable list — so every schedule in this series is now under-inclusive, and the community service power may have been deleted before any state used it. Following 177A back led somewhere stranger: the regulations it punishes were superseded in 2017, and state departments are still publishing the 1989 version.
ReadTwenty pages built around a table. Meghalaya’s section 200 notification has no table at all — instead of figures it sets a rule: amounts “not lesser than fifty percent of the maximum fine prescribed”. So a 2011 document still works, while Telangana’s fixed schedule from fifteen weeks earlier went stale. But the formula only saved the money, not the scope — its list of nine sections is from 2011, and section 194D for helmets did not exist then. Chasing that took us to something twenty-one pages had never done: reading section 200 itself — which settles that the compoundable list is Parliament’s and not the states’, confirms why drink driving can never be compounded, and reveals a community service power no state has used.
ReadThree pages in this series quoted a state rule capping a composition amount at ₹100 and we treated it as a stale state figure. We were wrong, and Goa proves it. Its rule 54 names its own parent provision — section 50(3), which allows “not exceeding one hundred rupees” in lieu of action under section 177. The ceiling is Parliament’s, not the state’s. In 1988 section 177 also carried ₹100 — the two matched exactly. In 2019 Parliament raised section 177 to ₹500 and ₹1,500 and left that ceiling alone: a 31-year symmetry became a 15:1 gap by nobody doing anything. Also here: the four paperwork delays this reaches, and why the real exposure on a late transfer is never the fee.
ReadOn Shimla’s sealed and restricted roads the law that stops you is not the Motor Vehicles Act — it is a Himachal statute of its own, the Shimla Road Users and Pedestrians (Public Safety and Convenience) Act, 2007. And it contains what no section 200 schedule in India contains: a fifty per cent on-the-spot settlement written into the Act itself, twice. Also here: the RC and the licence impounded if you do not pay; a plea of guilty by money order; time limits that run against the prosecution rather than against you; two appeals with named officers and real deadlines — the first appellate route in nineteen states that is in a statute; and section 22, confirming the Motor Vehicles Act keeps running alongside all of it.
ReadSeventeen states chose their own numbers. Assam did not choose. It issued notification TMV.250/2019/67 twenty-five days after the 2019 amendment — the fastest in India — and across eighty-eight rows gave no discount at all: every figure is the Act’s own. It is also the only state in eighteen that publishes four separate schedules, one per class of officer. The price never changes between them; the permission does. Police cannot compound overloading in Assam, and the two ₹1,00,000 dealer rows are reserved to senior transport officers. On a second speeding offence the schedule offers no amount at all — it offers impounding of the licence under section 206(4). Then in June 2024 the cabinet replaced the two-wheeler document fine with a warning, which is generous and which settles nothing.
ReadThe state publishes its own price list and almost nobody has read it. Notification F 5-5/VIII-Trans/2021 of 25 October 2021, issued under sub-section (1) of section 200 and sitting on the department’s own gazette archive — one of only two post-2019 schedules in India. Forty priced entries, twenty-four kinds of officer down to a Head Constable, and a repeat-offence column used on nineteen of forty rows where Madhya Pradesh — same 1994 rulebook, same design — uses it on six of thirty-one. We measured every row against the Act: a tenth of it on one section, the whole of it on five, one row above the Act and one below its floor. Plus the three-month disqualification that no schedule in seventeen states has ever mentioned.
ReadFifteen pages of schedules answer one question — what does it cost. Kerala answers the one that matters after you have paid. Following the Supreme Court, the High Court has held that even after a section 194 offence is compounded, the excess load cannot be permitted to stay on the vehicle — and directed that the driving licence goes to the Licensing Authority under section 19(1) even where the offence is compounded under section 200. Paying ends the offence. It does not authorise the condition, and it does not stop the second track. Also here: ₹5,000 per light for after-market LEDs, and Kerala’s 726 AI cameras — 1.3 crore challans, ₹900 crore issued, ₹300 crore collected, and ₹34.8 crore of payments frozen over questions about which cameras can even read speed.
ReadEvery schedule in this series was drafted before Parliament rewrote the penalties in 2019 — Telangana’s 2011, Andhra Pradesh’s 2008, Maharashtra’s 2016. Madhya Pradesh issued one on 6 March 2023, superseding all others. It is the only post-amendment list in fifteen states. And it prices three ways at once: by section, by first or second offence, and by what you drive. We checked every row — the repeat column changes the figure on only six of thirty-one, and those six turn out to be a coherent set. Also here: ₹1,00,000 per vehicle aimed at dealers not drivers, ₹300 for a helmet (the lowest anywhere), a load-projection row priced by what you are carrying, and 19 categories of officer including District Magistrates.
ReadBoth states carry a “Compounding” link. Open Andhra Pradesh’s and it is a different law altogether — not section 200 but section 86(5), the money taken instead of suspending your permit. G.O. Ms. No. 332 of 2008, rule 217, priced by what the vehicle is and what it carries: overload ₹2,000 + ₹100 per 100 kg, ₹200 per hour for missing your timings, ₹500 per excess big animal. Medium goods pay half, light goods a third. And AP is the only state in fourteen that publishes the other half too — a prosecution table naming the eight offences no payment will ever close. Its note four is the sting: the published fees are minimums, not prices.
ReadThirteen states in, we finally have the document itself. Every page so far ended the same way — the amounts live in a notification under section 200 that nobody can open. Telangana publishes its own. G.O. Ms. No. 108 of 18 August 2011: eighteen offences, two columns by vehicle, the officers who may take the money — and a proviso that does what nothing else in this series does. It writes the state’s own ceiling: the compounding fee shall not exceed the maximum fine prescribed in the relevant penal section. Odisha showed the floor; this is the roof. One problem: it is dated 2011 and the Act changed in 2019. Also here: the real 80–90% discount of December 2023, a half-rate for agriculturists, and why the police have had to call the yearly “discount” messages fake and fraudulent.
ReadTwelve states in, this is the one that shows you the line. Odisha’s One Time Settlement Scheme for e-challans pending on 31 July 2025 is not a flat discount. Six rows say “50%”. Eleven say a rupee figure — and that figure is always the exact statutory minimum the Act prescribes, never half. Seventeen rows, no exceptions. Where Parliament wrote “may extend to” the state halved it; where Parliament wrote “not less than” the state stopped dead at the floor. We reproduce all seventeen. Also: what the annexure leaves out — helmet, seat belt, insurance, licence, overloading — the notified speed limits under s.112, and a scheme that names no power and carries no legible date.
ReadThree states have now printed a composition rate in their own rules, and all three measure delay differently. Karnataka counts months. Tamil Nadu uses bands of days. Uttarakhand counts weeks — and sets the rate by what you drive. Rule 45: one rupee a week for an invalid carriage, five for a motor cycle, fifty for everything else — and a proviso capping the lot at ₹100. So a lorry hits the ceiling in a fortnight and an invalid carriage takes two years. Unlike Tamil Nadu, transport vehicles are in. Also here: the first appeal fee printed anywhere in eleven states (₹20 and ₹25), the Deputy Transport Commissioner (legal and tribunal), and a year in which challans rose 118.77% while collections rose 37.07%.
ReadTen states in, and this is the one that is open about exactly one half of itself. Tamil Nadu publishes no compounding amounts for road offences and no officer schedule — and then prints four composition rates inside its own rules, which almost nobody is ever shown. Rules 98, 105-A, 109 and 113: a late registration, a transfer not reported, a new registration mark, a change of address. ₹40 up to thirty days, ₹75 to sixty, ₹100 after — and ₹150 in the top slab of rule 113 alone. Each rule says the money is taken in lieu of any action under section 177, which no other state spells out. Also here: the enabling clause cites a section 311 that does not exist in the Act, rule 98 quietly leaves transport vehicles out, the founding notification carries no date, and section 200 is absent for the seventh time in seven tests.
ReadNine states in, the range has turned out to be enormous — and Gujarat sits at the bottom of it. Chief Minister Vijay Rupani announced the cuts on 10 September 2019: triple riding at ₹100, where West Bengal takes ₹1,000 and three months of your licence. Helmet and seat belt ₹500. A pollution offence ₹1,000, where Bengal takes ₹10,000 with a disqualification. Ten times, for the same words in the same Act. Then on 4 December 2019 the Transport Minister announced helmets would be optional except on highways and panchayat roads — we print what was said, flag that we could not find the notification, and say plainly that this is no reason to ride without one. Also here: rule 107, the first appeal procedure we have been able to read in nine states, and rule 98A’s thirty-day grievance clock for app aggregators.
ReadTwo things, and the first one saves money today. Rules 37 and 45 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules still compose a late registration renewal and a late transfer intimation at twenty-five rupees a calendar month, capped at one hundred rupees — figures written in 1989 and never updated, and the two lapses vehicle owners get caught by most. We quote both rules in full. The second thing is bigger: Karnataka is where somebody asked out loud whether a state may cut a traffic fine. The Centre said yes on 11 September 2019, Karnataka took legal opinion, cut on 21 September, and the Centre then said states had no authority at all. Both were right about different things — a state cannot touch the fine a court imposes, but section 200 gives it the compounding amount. That distinction is the key to every other state page on this site, and this is where it surfaced.
ReadEvery state publishes what you can pay. Maharashtra is the only one that also published what you cannot — a list of nine non-compoundable offences. Two of them are things your neighbours let you settle for money: driving without a permit (₹10,000 in both Jharkhand and West Bengal) and overloading (₹20,000 plus ₹2,000 a tonne in Jharkhand). Here there is no amount at all — a court decides, both the driver and the owner are charged, and a repeat permit offence carries a minimum three-month sentence. The same document shows a Police Constable as the compounding authority for about 95 of 104 offences, the lowest rank floor of any state we have examined and the exact opposite of Bengal. Its money is from 2016 and stale, it is still sitting on a government server, and we say so.
ReadFive states in, every page had a hole — Haryana told us who may issue a challan but never what it costs, Jharkhand the reverse. Bengal prints both halves in one notification. Schedule I names who may compound, and for oversized vehicles under section 182B that is the Director of Transport alone, one officer for the whole state. Schedule II runs to twenty-six rows and six columns, because Bengal is the only state that prints the section you broke and the section you are charged under separately — which makes a challan testable on its face. We reproduce both schedules. Then overloading, which is deliberately left out: it runs on its own notification that suspends the permit on a second offence and cancels it on a third, with the registration suspended behind it. Also: a ₹10,000 figure where Jharkhand charges ₹1,000, three rows where a licence disqualification rides along with the payment, a rule 349 that may crack our five-state pattern, and a police page still quoting superseded notifications.
ReadA District Transport Officer in Patna wrote that traffic challans could not be taken up at a National Lok Adalat. Somebody took that letter to the High Court — and fourteen months later the State had notified a scheme letting old e-challans be closed at fifty per cent, with the Chief Justice directing where the counters should stand and that no money be taken in cash. This page traces the whole sequence from Rani @ Rani Tiwari v. State of Bihar to Notification No. 3261 of 30 April 2026, sets out exactly which offences the scheme covers — and the one it leaves out, which is overloading, the most expensive offence in the Act. Also: why the Lok Adalat did not reduce anything, a correction to our own earlier pages, section 200 missing for the fifth state running, and the Supreme Court order pulling from the other end.
ReadThree state pages in we had to keep telling readers the amounts could not be printed, because the document fixing them was unreachable or a photograph. Jharkhand broke that. Its Transport Department memo Pari. Ayu.-192/2016 carries a five-column schedule — section, offence, penalty before 1 September 2019, penalty after, and the compounding fee — and we reproduce all twenty-five rows. Then the harder half: section 185 and a dozen others are not in it at all, section 194A has an empty compounding cell, and a second speeding offence carries a licence impoundment instead of a sum. Also here: three rows whose penalty columns appear transposed, the three-month deferral of September 2019, the state rules of 2001 that will not open, a Delhi address printed on the state enforcement page, and the Supreme Court order of 28 September 2026 that turns an unpaid challan into a blocked registration.
ReadAcross three state pages we kept asking the same question — who is actually allowed to stop you and write this — and Haryana is the first state that answers it. Rule 225 of its 1993 rules, substituted in 2021, appoints seventeen categories of officer and lists the sections each may challan under. We reproduce the whole schedule. The police floor is an ASI, their list is shorter than the transport list, and overloading under section 194 does not appear against the police at all — it is transport department work. Two provisos matter: five officers cannot touch private buses, and police powers widen outside municipal limits. Section 200 is missing from the enabling provisions for the third state running, so the amounts come from a notification we could not find — and we say so rather than copying a rate list.
ReadOur second state page, and the finding at the top of it is one the High Court only said out loud in August 2026: Uttar Pradesh has no separate traffic police cadre, and the Bench asked the government to decide on creating one. The state’s own rules contain no compounding provision — section 200 is not even among their enabling sections — so the amount comes from a notification, dated June 2020, and the schedule everybody quotes online is older than the 2019 amendment. An appeal in a licensing matter goes to the Deputy Transport Commissioner of the Zone, not the RTO. Plus the High Court’s own Payment Setu portal across 74 district courts, the school-vehicle chapter nobody mentions, number portability, and why this page carries no compounding figures.
ReadA stay order is not a thing you can go and collect. It is an order made inside a suit, which is why the document that has to exist first is the plaint and not the application. The Supreme Court set three requirements, and most applications die on the third: irreparable injury means an injury that money at the end of the case cannot adequately repair — so “I will lose money” is usually not enough. Before any of that there is a gate: section 41 of the Specific Relief Act lists eleven situations where an injunction cannot be granted at all, including stopping a criminal proceeding, and one added in 2018 for infrastructure projects. Also the ex parte order and the thirty days in Rule 3A that people mistake for a result, what happens to somebody who breaks an injunction, and the appeal that runs both ways.
ReadAlmost nobody reading this chose arbitration. It was in the loan agreement, the builder agreement, the insurance policy — a clause nobody negotiated. So the first question is not how arbitration works; it is whether that clause can be used the way the other side says. On the two commonest versions the Supreme Court has said no. A party interested in the outcome cannot alone appoint the arbitrator (2019), and a Constitution Bench held in November 2024 that unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violate Article 14. And if you are a consumer, the clause does not shut the consumer forum. Plus the twelve-plus-six month clock, the grounds for setting an award aside in the statute’s own words, the 2025 ruling on when a court may modify one, and why filing a challenge no longer freezes the award.
ReadThe one rule a court applies against you even if the other side never mentions it. Section 3 says a late suit shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence, so hoping nobody notices is not a plan. We set out how the Schedule really works — and why the third column, saying when time starts, decides more than the number of years does. What restarts the clock (a signed acknowledgement, a recorded part payment) and the condition both carry. Why delay can be condoned in an appeal but never in a suit. The Covid exclusion of 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022, still worth nearly two years and still forgotten. And section 27, where losing the period does not just bar the suit — it extinguishes the ownership.
ReadEvery page on this subject opens by saying mediation is voluntary. That is true of one of the three mediations you can end up in. Before a commercial suit it is compulsory, and the Supreme Court has treated compliance as jurisdictional — skip it and the plaint is liable to be rejected. And a court can refer you without your consent at all, unlike arbitration. We also did the thing nobody seems to have done: checked how much of the Mediation Act 2023 is actually in force. The commencement notification we could find switched on the regulator and the rule-making power — not pre-litigation mediation, not confidentiality, not enforcement. Plus the section 12A judgments from 2022 to October 2025, what is privileged, and the four grounds on which a settlement can be undone.
ReadTwenty pages on this site mention it and none of them explained it, so here it is from the only angle that matters: the point of view of the person being asked to sign. A Lok Adalat cannot decide anything — the Supreme Court said so in 2008 — it only records what you agree to. And section 21(2) makes that record a civil decree against which no appeal lies to any court. Not a suit to set it aside, and not objections in execution: the Supreme Court shut both doors in November 2025, in a case where a man lost a property he had bought for four crore rupees through an award he was never party to. Also what can and cannot be referred, the divorce line nobody reconciles, the court fee refund, why the traffic challan discount has no instrument behind it, and the Permanent Lok Adalat, which can decide against you.
ReadThe words are not interchangeable in India and the difference has consequences. Who may appear for you, where notaries, legal consultants, document writers and “case managers” fit, and how to spot somebody who is not entitled to practise.
ReadSearch enrolled advocates by practice area, court, city, experience and language. Alphabetical, no rankings. Free to search and free to send a request.
Open the directoryNearly all of this page concerns documents, for the good reason that nearly all challans are a document problem. A minority are not, and in Manipur that minority is drawn in a slightly different place.
If the provision cannot be compounded — 185, 187, 188, 193, 197, 199A, or 184 beyond the phone limb — there is no counter outcome available and a magistrate deals with it. In a state whose published enforcement model is already a magistrate’s mobile court, that is not a remote prospect. If a vehicle has been seized. If somebody was injured. If a licence has been taken under section 206(4) and three months affects how you earn.
There is no charge for using the directory or for sending a request through it. Everybody listed for that practice area receives the request at once, and the first of them with capacity picks it up. Your number is withheld until that happens.
Court work is for your advocate, whose fee is engaged and paid by you directly; we do not quote, collect or share it.
These are our drafting charges and nothing else; they are identical in all thirty-six jurisdictions.
An information request is five hundred, and here it can do what it cannot do in thirty-five other places: put the department’s own four-item framework in front of it and ask why the provision is missing from it. Two thousand five hundred covers a written reply, which is what a figure above the statutory limit or a non-compoundable provision calls for. Everything plainer — including a vehicle still being held — is a simple application at one thousand five hundred. Using the directory, and routing a request through it, is free.
None of an advocate’s fee reaches us.
And the advice that thirty-six jurisdictions have not shifted by a word: find the section, look up what the Act permits for it, pay what is owed, and file the receipt.
Manipur’s Transport Department publishes the four instruments it works under and section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not among them, so there is no state compounding schedule to check your challan against — the central Act’s ceiling for the provision on your paper is the whole of the written position. Tell us what is printed and we will tell you what the current Act permits for that section, whether a counter can settle it at all or whether it belongs in front of a magistrate, and whether three months off the road travels with it. If you want the question put formally, we will draft the request that quotes the department’s own published framework back to it. Everybody listed under that practice area gets the request at the same moment and the first one with capacity takes it on. Your number stays withheld until an advocate has accepted, and we never bill for drafting in advance.
Two doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
Would rather not pick anybody? Tell us the matter instead — one form goes to every advocate at once, and the first to take it up calls you.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates