Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to issue a further Ordinance clarifying that prosecutions for certain serious offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were never deemed to have been abated under the State’s 2023 legislation. The Court specifically emphasised that non-compoundable offences, offences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and repeated offences must continue to be prosecuted, even where proceedings had previously been treated as abated.

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan made the observations while hearing an interlocutory application in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others, a long-running public interest litigation concerning road safety. The proceedings arose from a challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Act, 2023, which provided for the abatement of certain pending criminal prosecutions, including proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act that were pending as of December 31, 2021.

The Court’s intervention is significant because the dispute concerns more than the procedural disposal of old criminal cases. It raises important questions about the relationship between State legislation and parliamentary law, the limits of a State Government’s authority to discontinue criminal prosecutions, and the need to preserve effective enforcement of road safety legislation.

The Motor Vehicles Act is the principal central legislation governing motor vehicles, traffic regulation, and various offences associated with their use. Its provisions seek to promote road discipline and protect the lives and safety of road users. Depending on the nature of the offence, the Act provides for monetary penalties, imprisonment, or both. Certain offences may be compounded in accordance with the statutory framework, while others are non-compoundable and must proceed through the criminal justice process.

The distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences is particularly important in the present dispute. Compounding allows an offence to be settled in the manner authorised by law, subject to applicable conditions. A non-compoundable offence, however, cannot ordinarily be brought to an end through a private settlement between the accused and the complainant. Its prosecution is governed by the statutory scheme and the criminal justice process.

The Uttar Pradesh legislation of 2023 introduced a mechanism for the abatement of specified pending trials. In practical terms, abatement meant that the proceedings covered by the law would come to an end without the usual criminal trial reaching its conclusion. The provision extended to prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act that were pending on December 31, 2021.

The State’s decision to introduce such a measure attracted judicial scrutiny because the underlying offences were created and regulated by a central enactment. The question was whether the State could bring those prosecutions to an end through its own legislation, particularly where the central law contemplated continued prosecution and prescribed imprisonment for certain violations.

The constitutional issue was also linked to Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with inconsistency between parliamentary legislation and legislation enacted by State Legislatures on matters falling within the Concurrent List. Article 254(2) provides a mechanism under which a State law containing a provision repugnant to an earlier parliamentary law may prevail within that State if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received presidential assent. The precise application of this provision to the Uttar Pradesh legislation was among the matters raised before the Supreme Court.

The controversy had already come before the Court in November 2025, when the Bench questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government about the 2023 law. Following those proceedings, the State indicated that it proposed to amend the relevant provision to clarify that non-compoundable offences, offences carrying mandatory punishment, and subsequent offences would not stand abated.

The State subsequently informed the Court that it had also promulgated an Ordinance in 2026 addressing these categories of offences. However, the amendment did not entirely resolve the controversy. A further difficulty remained: what would happen to prosecutions that had already been treated as abated under the original legislation?

It was this unresolved issue that brought the matter back before the Bench. While the State had taken steps to identify cases that should continue, the amicus curiae maintained that the proposed amendment could not substitute for judicial examination of the constitutional validity of the legislation.

The Supreme Court, while agreeing that the constitutional question had been raised, indicated that an effective legislative solution might make it unnecessary to undertake that examination at the present stage. The Bench therefore sought further clarification from the State and suggested that the proposed Ordinance should expressly establish that the relevant categories of offences had never been deemed to have been abated.

The Court’s approach reflects an attempt to ensure that serious traffic-related offences remain subject to prosecution while giving the State an opportunity to address the consequences of its earlier legislation.

Arguments of the Parties:

The principal submissions before the Supreme Court were advanced by Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who appeared as amicus curiae, and the counsel representing the Uttar Pradesh Government. Their respective positions brought into focus the difference between correcting the operation of the State legislation and determining whether the legislation itself was constitutionally valid.

Amicus Curiae’s Submissions:

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal reiterated his objection to the Uttar Pradesh Government’s proposed amendment. His central argument was that merely excluding certain categories of offences from the abatement provision would not adequately resolve the constitutional concerns arising from the 2023 legislation.

The amicus maintained that the constitutional validity of the State law required examination because of its potential inconsistency with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a central enactment governing the prosecution of motor vehicle offences.

According to him, the central legislation establishes a statutory framework for dealing with traffic violations, including offences for which prosecution and punishment are contemplated. A State law that brings pending criminal proceedings to an end must therefore be examined to determine whether it interferes with that framework.

The objection was particularly significant in relation to non-compoundable offences. Where an offence cannot be compounded under the applicable law, the parties cannot ordinarily terminate the prosecution merely by arriving at a settlement. The amicus argued that the State could not simply treat such prosecutions as abated without addressing the legal consequences of the central enactment.

He also emphasised the importance of mandatory imprisonment and repeated offences. In his submission, these categories could not be treated as ordinary cases suitable for blanket abatement because the statutory consequences attached to them reflected the seriousness with which the legislature viewed the conduct.

The amicus linked this issue directly to the broader objective of road safety. He submitted that the purpose of prosecuting traffic offences was not confined to punishing individual offenders. Effective enforcement also serves as a deterrent, discouraging violations and encouraging compliance with traffic regulations.

During the hearing, Agarwal submitted that the central law contemplated prosecution and that road safety was a matter affecting the public at large. He expressed concern that the absence of effective deterrence could weaken public compliance with traffic laws.

His submission was, therefore, that the State’s proposed amendment could not be viewed merely as a technical correction. The constitutional question had to be considered in light of the legislative framework governing motor vehicle offences and the public interest in ensuring that violations were dealt with in accordance with law.

The amicus also referred to an affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh Government stating that committees had been constituted at the district level to identify cases involving offences that would continue to be prosecuted.

While this exercise was relevant to determining which cases remained pending and which had been affected by the abatement provision, the amicus sought a more comprehensive response from the State. He wanted the Government to furnish a report indicating that the relevant categories of offences were being revived and prosecuted.

In his view, identifying cases and proposing amendments would not, by themselves, settle the question of whether the original legislation could validly bring criminal prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act to an end.

The amicus accordingly requested the Supreme Court to examine the constitutional validity of the amendment and determine whether it was consistent with the constitutional requirements governing State legislation that conflicts with parliamentary law.

Uttar Pradesh Government’s Submissions:

The counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Bench that the State had already taken steps to address the concerns raised during the earlier proceedings.

The Government had proposed an amendment to clarify that non-compoundable offences, offences carrying mandatory punishment, and subsequent offences would not stand abated under the 2023 legislation.

The State further informed the Court that an Ordinance had been promulgated in 2026 to clarify the treatment of these categories of offences. The Ordinance was intended to ensure that prosecutions involving such offences would not be discontinued merely because of the abatement provision contained in the earlier law.

The State’s position was that the legislative clarification would distinguish offences that could be covered by the abatement mechanism from those that had to continue through the ordinary criminal justice process.

The Government also addressed the practical question of identifying cases that had already been affected by the legislation. Its counsel informed the Bench that an exercise had been undertaken to determine the number and nature of such cases across Uttar Pradesh.

According to the State, information had already been received from 72 of the 75 districts in the State. This indicated that the Government was collecting district-level information to determine which prosecutions had been treated as abated and which cases required further action.

The submission was relevant because the operation of the 2023 legislation had potentially affected proceedings in a large number of districts. Without identifying the cases involved, it would be difficult to determine the extent to which the amendment or the proposed further clarification needed to be implemented.

However, the State’s response also exposed the central difficulty in the proceedings. Although the 2026 Ordinance clarified that specified categories of offences would not stand abated, the Bench wanted to know how the Government intended to deal with cases in which the prosecutions had already been treated as having come to an end.

The State’s explanation concerning the district-wise identification exercise therefore addressed the question of locating the affected cases, but the Court sought an additional legislative clarification regarding their legal status.

The proceedings ultimately centred on whether the State could provide an express and effective assurance that the relevant prosecutions would remain legally alive, rather than merely stating that the offences were excluded from abatement under the amended framework.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court considered the competing submissions and expressed agreement with the amicus curiae on the fundamental importance of prosecuting serious offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Bench observed that there was no justification for allowing non-compoundable offences, offences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and repeated offences to escape prosecution merely because of the abatement mechanism introduced by the Uttar Pradesh legislation.

The Court’s concern was not limited to the wording of the proposed amendment. It also extended to the practical consequences of the original law and the need to ensure that prosecutions already treated as abated could be dealt with appropriately.

The question of cases already treated as abated

An important moment during the hearing came when Justice JB Pardiwala asked the State Government what would happen to cases in which the offences had already stood abated under the 2023 legislation.

The question brought out a distinction between two situations. The first involved prosecutions that were still pending and could be protected by an amendment excluding specified offences from the abatement provision. The second involved prosecutions that had already been treated as having come to an end under the original legislation.

The Bench indicated that a clarification dealing only with future or pending cases would not necessarily resolve the position of prosecutions that had already been affected.

The State counsel responded that the Government had undertaken an exercise to identify the affected cases. Information had been received from 72 out of the 75 districts in Uttar Pradesh.

While the Court took note of this exercise, it sought a more direct legislative solution. The Bench wanted the State to make it clear that the relevant prosecutions would not be regarded as having been lawfully extinguished by the original abatement provision.

This aspect of the hearing was particularly important because the legal consequences of abatement cannot necessarily be reversed merely by declaring that certain offences should not be covered by a subsequent amendment. The status of proceedings already treated as terminated requires specific attention.

Suggestion to issue a further Ordinance

Justice Pardiwala suggested that the Uttar Pradesh Government issue a further Ordinance expressly addressing the cases in which non-compoundable offences, offences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and repeated offences had already been treated as abated.

The proposed clarification was intended to ensure that such prosecutions could continue rather than remain terminated under the original legislation.

The Judge indicated that if the State came forward with an appropriate legislative solution, the Court might not need to examine the constitutional validity of the amendments.

He suggested that the Ordinance should specifically provide for the revival of prosecutions involving the relevant categories of offences.

Justice KV Viswanathan, however, suggested a more precise formulation. Rather than merely stating that such cases would be revived, the Ordinance should clarify that the offences were “never deemed” to have been abated.

This suggestion was significant because it focused on the legal status of the affected prosecutions. The proposed language would seek to establish that the relevant offences had not been extinguished by the original legislation in the first place.

The distinction between revival and clarification was central to the Court’s approach. A provision expressly stating that the offences were never deemed to have been abated would address the legal basis on which the prosecutions had been treated as terminated.

The Bench therefore sought a further Ordinance that would clearly establish the continued prosecutability of the specified offences.

Constitutional validity of the State legislation

The Supreme Court also considered the amicus curiae’s request for examination of the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) Act, 2023.

The amicus had argued that the State legislation required scrutiny because of its alleged inconsistency with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He also raised the issue of presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

Article 254 addresses situations in which a State law is inconsistent with a law made by Parliament on a matter falling within the Concurrent List. Under Article 254(2), a State law that has been reserved for the President’s consideration and has received presidential assent may prevail within that State, notwithstanding its inconsistency with an earlier parliamentary law, subject to the constitutional framework.

The amicus sought to question whether the Uttar Pradesh legislation satisfied the applicable constitutional requirements and whether its abatement provision could validly operate against prosecutions contemplated under the central enactment.

The Court recorded these objections but did not finally determine the constitutional validity of the State law during the hearing.

Instead, the Bench indicated that the immediate problem might be resolved through an appropriate Ordinance. If the State expressly clarified that the specified offences had never been deemed to have been abated, the necessity of examining the constitutional challenge might not arise.

This approach should not be understood as a final finding that the 2023 legislation was constitutionally valid. Nor did the Court hold that the State’s proposed Ordinance had already revived all affected prosecutions.

Rather, the Bench sought to provide the State with an opportunity to address the issue through legislative clarification before deciding whether a constitutional determination was necessary.

Importance of prosecution for road safety

The Court’s observations were made in the context of the broader road safety proceedings in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others.

The Bench’s agreement with the amicus curiae reflected the importance of ensuring that serious traffic offences are dealt with under the applicable statutory framework.

The prosecution of non-compoundable offences, offences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and repeated offences has particular significance because these categories involve statutory restrictions or consequences that cannot simply be disregarded through a general mechanism for disposing of pending cases.

The Court’s approach also highlighted the relationship between enforcement and deterrence. If offences carrying serious statutory consequences are routinely allowed to escape prosecution, the effectiveness of the legal framework may be undermined.

At the same time, the Court did not suggest that every prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act must necessarily continue regardless of the applicable law. Its observations were directed towards the specific categories of offences identified during the proceedings and the need to ensure that the State’s abatement legislation did not improperly extinguish their prosecution.

Final outcome and directions

After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to provide further clarity through an Ordinance.

The Court recorded the amicus curiae’s challenge to the constitutional validity of the 2023 legislation, including the objection concerning presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

It also noted the State’s position regarding the earlier amendment and the district-wise exercise undertaken to identify affected prosecutions.

The Bench agreed with the amicus that there was no justification for failing to prosecute non-compoundable offences, ofences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and repeated offences under the Motor Ve