NEW DELHI: Citing the provisions of Information Technology (IT) Act, the road transport ministry has asked traffic police and state transport departments to accept the driving licence, registration certificate, insurance papers or any other document in “electronic form” presented through DigiLocker or the mParivahan app.
“The electronic records available on DigiLocker or mParivahan are deemed to be legally recognised at par with the original documents as per provisions of the IT Act, 2000,” an advisory issued by the ministry said. It added the documents available in the “electronic form” are valid under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and be treated at par with the certificates issued by the transport authorities.
The advisory said, “If the vehicle registration details on the mParivahan/ eChallan app contain the details of the insurance policy, then the requirement of a physical copy of the policy which is in-force, then the requirement of a physical copy of the insurance certificate is not to be enforced.”
TOI on July 17 had first reported about the government’s proposal to make it mandatory for traffic and transport enforcement authorities and traffic police to accept digital version of of all vehicle documents including pollution under control certificates and insurance documents.
A very good advisory. Hope the Police Departments of State Govts issue suitable instructions to the staff. If Airport security can accept e-ticket on mobile why not this?Nemam Natarajan Pasupathy
In its advisory, the ministry said it had been receiving grievances and RTI applications from citizens raising how traffic police and transport departments in states were not considering digital format of such documents as valid ones. The MV Act makes it mandatory for owner or driver of a vehicle to produce documents to the authorities on demand.
According to the ministry’s communique, the enforcement agencies can even get the offences of drivers or vehicle reflected in the Vahan and Sarathi database electronically through eChallan system and “there would be no requirement of a physical seizure of such documents.”