In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, a petition was filed under Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) challenging the directives issued by the learned JMFC-02 (South) at Saket Courts in Delhi on July 19 and July 27, 2024. The orders mandated the MD/CEO of Benetton India Private Limited, the petitioner, to personally appear in court regarding traffic challans related to a vehicle owned by the company, specifically concerning incidents of over-speeding. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta remarked that requiring the MD/CEO’s presence solely for addressing these traffic violations is unwarranted and contradicts established principles of judicial efficiency.
In 2020, the petitioner company’s vehicle incurred two traffic challans that required attention before the vehicle could be scrapped. An Authorized Representative (AR) of Benetton India attended the Trial Court to resolve these issues. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the AR possessed a stamp resembling that of the MD and CEO, raising suspicions. This prompted JMFC-02 to summon both the notary involved and the MD/CEO for further scrutiny into possible forgery or procedural discrepancies. On July 27, 2024, following the notary’s testimony, the Court let the notary go with a caution to improve record-keeping practices, yet insisted that the company’s CEO/MD must still appear for the formal imposition of penalties, arguing that an AR’s appearance alone was inadequate.
Aggrieved by this requirement, the petitioner argued that the traffic violations could be effectively managed by the AR without the direct involvement of the MD/CEO, as compelling high-ranking executives to attend over minor infractions places an undue burden on the management of a large corporation. The petitioner contended that the insistence on the CEO’s personal attendance was an unreasonable and arbitrary procedural hurdle, and questioned the Trial Court’s examination of the company’s internal authorization processes when the AR had been legitimately authorized.
The Court recognized the need for a practical approach in adjudicating minor traffic offenses, particularly as corporations often operate numerous vehicles, making it impractical for senior executives to attend court for minor infringements. The Court underscored the legitimacy of the AR’s authorization and ruled that the Trial Court’s requirement for the CEO/MD’s presence was illogical and should be annulled. As a result, the Court quashed the JMFC-02’s orders and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the resolution of the challans represented by the AR.
The Court highlighted advancements in traffic law enforcement, especially the automated issuance of e-challans via CCTV surveillance. It pointed out that recent amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act in Delhi now offer various avenues for resolving traffic violations, including on-the-spot fines, online payments, e-courts, and Lok Adalats for compoundable offenses. The Court also identified certain challenges within the e-court system, such as its user unfriendly design and accessibility barriers that obstruct efficient case resolutions. Among these were complications in disputing challans online and inadequate options for communicating whether someone other than the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the offense.
In light of these observations, the Court commended the proactive measures taken by the Delhi Traffic Police and mandated the issuance of a public notification to educate the public about the updated traffic violation procedures. Additionally, it recommended that its insights regarding the e-court system be communicated to the Supreme Court’s e-Committee for further enhancements to online management of traffic challans. Ultimately, the petition was resolved, with the Court’s directives forwarded to the Trial Court for prompt implementation.
[Benetton India Private Limited v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 6071/2024, decided on 21-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Karan Nagrath, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Rashmi Gogoi, Mr. Laksh Kundlas, Mr. Krishnagopal Abhay, Mr. Karmanya Singh and Mr. Ambuj Tiwari and Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Advocates for petitioner
Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with Mr.Dheeraj Narrang, ACP / Traffic / New and Mr. Amit Issar, ACP / Traffic / HQ. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, AOJ on behalf of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi.
**Interview with Legal Expert, Dr. Meera Singh, on the Delhi High Court Ruling on Corporate Accountability for Traffic Violations**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Singh. The Delhi High Court recently made a significant ruling concerning a petition filed by Benetton India Private Limited regarding traffic violations. Can you give us a brief overview of what the ruling entailed?
**Dr. Singh:** Certainly! The Delhi High Court addressed a petition under Section 530 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which challenged directives from the Saket Courts. The court had mandated that the MD/CEO of Benetton India personally appear regarding traffic violations linked to the company’s vehicle. The High Court found this requirement to be unnecessary and contrary to principles of judicial efficiency, emphasizing that such minor infractions should be addressed through authorized representatives instead.
**Interviewer:** What were the main arguments put forth by the petitioner against this requirement for personal attendance?
**Dr. Singh:** The petitioner argued that compelling high-ranking executives to appear for minor traffic violations places an undue burden on the management of large corporations. They contended that the issues could be adequately handled by an Authorized Representative (AR) without the need for the MD/CEO to attend court. Furthermore, the petitioner raised concerns about the Trial Court’s examination of internal authorization processes when the AR had been legitimately designated for this purpose.
**Interviewer:** The ruling mentions concerns about potential forgery related to the AR’s authorization. How did that factor into the court’s decision?
**Dr. Singh:** That’s an important point. Initially, the court had concerns about the AR’s use of a stamp resembling that of the MD/CEO, which led to a deeper inquiry, including summoning the notary involved. However, the court later recognized that the AR’s authorization was valid and that requiring the MD/CEO’s presence was an overreach. The court’s decision underscores the need for practicality in handling minor offenses, particularly considering how corporations operate numerous vehicles.
**Interviewer:** The ruling also comments on advancements in traffic law enforcement, specifically the use of automated e-challans. How does this impact the overall context of corporate responsibility for traffic violations?
**Dr. Singh:** The mention of automated e-challans is significant. It reflects how modern traffic enforcement has evolved, reducing the need for executives to personally address minor violations. Such advancements in technology highlight that the system can operate efficiently without the need for high-level management involvement in routine matters. This leads to a more balanced approach where corporate accountability can be maintained without imposing unreasonable demands on executives.
**Interviewer:** what are the broader implications of this ruling for corporations and their interaction with the legal system?
**Dr. Singh:** This ruling sets an important precedent that could reshape how corporations handle traffic offenses and similar minor violations. It reaffirms the legitimacy of using authorized representatives and emphasizes the need for judicial efficiency. Corporations can now approach such matters with more confidence, knowing that the legal system recognizes the practicalities of modern business operations. it aims to streamline processes and ensure that high-ranking officials are not unduly burdened by minor infractions.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insights, Dr. Singh. It’s been enlightening to discuss this ruling and its implications.
**Dr. Singh:** Thank you for having me! It’s always a pleasure to discuss important legal developments.
