The recurring phenomenon of National Lok Adalats (NLA) in Delhi has transformed the way citizens interact with the judicial system regarding traffic violations. With thousands of "Virtual Court" challans being disposed of in a single day, the debate has intensified: is this the pinnacle of speedy justice, or is it a systematic erosion of the territorial jurisdiction of district courts?
The more nuanced legal concern lies in how these Lok Adalat sessions centralise the settlement process. Traditionally, territorial jurisdiction ensures that a case is heard where the cause of action - arose a principle that balances administrative convenience with the rights of the accused.
When challans from across the National Capital Territory are pooled into specific Lok Adalat benches, the strict lines of territorial jurisdiction become blurred. This "pooling" effectively bypasses the specific magistrate who would otherwise have the exclusive mandate to hear that matter.
The shift toward digital "tokens" and centralized physical locations for settlement suggests that jurisdiction is being treated more as an administrative hurdle than a fundamental legal requirement.
While Lok Adalats are based on consent, the sheer difficulty of contesting a digital challan in a regular court often move the citizens toward the Lok Adalat. If the only practical way to resolve a matter is through a centralised Lok Adalat, the concept of a "local court" starts to lose its functional meaning.
Under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the law is explicit:
"Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
The Supreme Court, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014), emphasised that this is not a matter of administrative choice but a mandate of law. Territorial jurisdiction ensures that the judicial process remains localised, predictable and tethered to the "lex loci" (law of the place).
The erosion of territorial boundaries creates a loophole where the sanctity of the court's decision can be undermined by administrative flexibility.
Consider a vehicle owner, 'A', who prints a token for the disposal of a challan at the Saket Court in Lok Adalat. Upon appearing, the Presiding Officer (PO) imposes a fine of ₹10,000. 'A' chooses to back out of the settlement, citing an inability to pay.
In the subsequent National Lok Adalat, 'A' prints a new token for the same challan, but this time for the Tis Hazari Court. Upon appearing before a different PO, 'A' manages to settle the exact same violation for a significantly reduced fine of ₹2,000.
This scenario highlights a critical flaw: when territorial jurisdiction is bypassed, it encourages a form of "forum shopping" where litigants can essentially test different courts and different presiding officers until they receive a favorable "deal," bypassing the consistent legal oversight of the court that originally held jurisdiction over the offence.
A stark example of this shift can be seen in recent National Lok Adalat notices (e.g., Notice No. 50653406). The offence of over-speeding took place at the Signature Bridge (from Signature Bridge to Bhajanpura). By law, this location falls strictly within the territorial jurisdiction of the North East District, Karkardooma Court.
However, the notice directs the violator to appear for settlement at the Rouse Avenue Courts Complex. This shift raises a vital question: if territorial jurisdiction is a statutory mandate, how is it so easily set aside for the sake of an administrative "token" system?
Local magistrates have a better understanding of specific traffic hotspots (like the Signature Bridge). When these cases are moved to a distant court like Rouse Avenue, the local "preventative" function of the judiciary is lost. It creates a perception that the local jurisdictional court is "optional" rather than a mandatory legal authority.
The digital "token" system, while modern, can lead to significant administrative friction when separated from territorial limits.
If a challan is settled in a "non-jurisdictional" court, it can lead to delays in updating the Vahan portal or the records of the local traffic circle.
In extreme cases, a lack of strict territorial synchronisation could result in a citizen being summoned by their local court even after settling the matter in a centralised Lok Adalat, leading to unnecessary harassment and multiple proceedings for the same offence.
From a utilitarian perspective, Lok Adalats are an essential "pressure valve" for the overworked Indian judiciary. The benefits are clear:
Mass disposal: Statistics show that a single Lok Adalat session can settle more cases than a regular court could in a year.
Cost-effectiveness: For the litigant, it eliminates the need for repeated hearings and legal fees.
Finality: Since Lok Adalat awards are passed on the basis of compromise, there is no provision for appeal, bringing an absolute end to the litigation.
The Lok Adalat system for traffic challans is undoubtedly a great win of administrative efficiency. It fulfills the constitutional mandate of "speedy justice" by clearing backlogs that would otherwise take decades to resolve.
However, this efficiency must not come at the cost of legal certainty and jurisdictional integrity.
Moving forward, the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) and the judiciary must find a middle ground. The digital "token" system should be technologically refined to ensure that challans are settled within their respective territorial districts. By geo-tagging tokens to their specific jurisdictions (for example, ensuring a Signature Bridge violation is only settled at Karkardooma), the system can preserve the speed of the Lok Adalat while preventing the "forum shopping" that currently threatens the sanctity of our judicial hierarchy. Justice should be fast, but it must, above all, be disciplined and consistent.
Tarun Kumar is the founder of Lex Legal Chambers LLP.