In a significant and urgent directive reflecting deep concern over public safety, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has sought a comprehensive report from both state governments, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the Centre on the formulation of a robust policy to prevent terrorists and criminals from equipping their vehicles with bulletproof modifications. This judicial intervention, led by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, was issued on May 26, 2025, expressing profound shock at how an alleged A-category gangster in Punjab managed to acquire and register a modified bulletproof vehicle. The ruling has expanded the scope of a petition initially concerning the seizure of a vehicle, transforming it into a crucial examination of regulatory loopholes that could pose a serious threat to law enforcement and civilian lives across the region.

The genesis of this judicial scrutiny lies in a writ petition filed by Kamlesh, the registered owner of an SUV. The petitioner contended that the vehicle had been in illegal police possession since September 8, 2024. However, during the course of the proceedings, it came to light that the petitioner’s son, identified as an A-category gangster involved in approximately 41 criminal cases (14 of which are still under trial), was allegedly using this very vehicle after it had been illegally modified and upgraded to bulletproof specifications. This revelation prompted Justice Tiwari to term the situation a “shocking state of affairs,” asserting that it was an “eye-opener” reflecting a significant administrative failure where a “notorious gangster was, in order to run his empire of illegal activities, allowed to use the bulletproof vehicle in question.”

The High Court’s immediate response was to direct the Director General of Police, Punjab, and the Chief Secretary of Punjab, to file their respective personal affidavits, detailing whether any policy or guidelines existed to regulate the modification or upgradation of motor vehicles to bulletproof specifications. The affidavit subsequently filed by the Punjab Chief Secretary, while acknowledging the absence of a specific existing policy, informed the court that a committee had been constituted on April 28, 2025, to formulate a comprehensive and legally enforceable framework for governing protective gears. This belated action, however, drew a sharp observation from Justice Tiwari, who noted that the “Government of Punjab woke up from the slumber only when this Court racked up this issue,” underscoring the gravity of the oversight.

Recognizing the wider implications of such a regulatory vacuum, Justice Tiwari took the crucial step of expanding the scope of the petition, impleading the Haryana Government and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The respective Chief Secretaries of these newly impleaded entities have been directed to file their own affidavits, informing the Court whether any policy or amendments in existing statutes or rules have been crafted by them to regulate the manufacturing, sale, and purchase of protective gears, including bulletproof vehicles. Furthermore, the Union of India, through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, has been specifically asked to inform the Court whether any particular policy or regulations dealing with the modification of motor vehicles to bulletproof vehicles are currently in existence at the national level. All parties are expected to comply with these directives before the next hearing scheduled for August 28, 2025, with the Punjab Chief Secretary also mandated to provide an update on the progress of the committee formed on April 28.

The underlying concern driving the High Court’s stringent approach is the increasing capability of criminals and terrorists to enhance their operational impunity through the use of such armored vehicles. In a region like Punjab, which has historically battled militancy and continues to face challenges from cross-border drug smuggling and gangsterism, the proliferation of bulletproof vehicles in the hands of illicit actors poses a direct and severe threat to law enforcement personnel and public safety. Ordinary police vehicles and patrol units are often ill-equipped to counter attacks from adversaries shielded within such fortified conveyances, leading to potential casualties and allowing criminals to evade capture more easily. This technological advantage for anti-social elements could severely undermine the rule of law and challenge the authority of the state.

Currently, while there are regulations concerning the use of bulletproof vehicles by government officials, VIPs, and those with certified security threats, the regulatory framework for the private ownership and modification of vehicles for bulletproofing appears to be ambiguous or non-existent in many states, including Punjab and Haryana. Manufacturers of armored vehicles do cater to the civilian market, but the process of obtaining permits, ensuring compliance with safety standards, and tracking the ownership of such modified vehicles often lacks robust oversight. This regulatory gap, as highlighted by the High Court, creates an environment where individuals with malicious intent can exploit the system, converting ordinary vehicles into formidable mobile fortresses.

The High Court is essentially pushing for a comprehensive policy framework that would likely involve several key components. This could include a mandatory licensing and registration process for any vehicle undergoing bulletproof modification, requiring stringent background checks on applicants to rule out any criminal or terrorist affiliations. There might be a need for certified modification centers with strict protocols for reporting such alterations to transport and police authorities. The policy could also outline penalties for unauthorized modifications and illegal possession of armored vehicles. Furthermore, the Court’s query to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways suggests a potential need for national-level guidelines or amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to bring uniformity and stricter control over such modifications across all states and union territories. The Ministry of Home Affairs had previously issued advisories in 2003 regarding protective gear, but their applicability and enforcement specifically for vehicles appear to be a lacuna.

This judicial intervention serves as a critical wake-up call for state administrations to address a burgeoning security threat. The High Court’s firm stance underscores the judiciary’s role as a guardian of public interest, forcing executive bodies to formulate and implement necessary safeguards in the face of evolving criminal tactics. The outcome of this directive, with reports expected by August 28, will not only define the future of bulletproof vehicle regulations in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh but could also set a precedent for other states grappling with similar challenges from organized crime and terrorism. It is a stark reminder that as criminals adopt new technologies and methods to circumvent law enforcement, the state must be equally agile and resolute in updating its legal and policy frameworks to ensure the safety and security of its citizens.