Can You Show Your Driving Licence On DigiLocker To The Police? All You Need To Know
The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) issued an advisory in 2018 stating that documents such as driving licenses, registration certificates, and others presented via the DigiLocker or mParivahan apps are legally recognised at par with their physical counterparts under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This means that traffic police and other enforcement authorities are required to accept these digital versions just like original paper documents.
The advisory further clarifies that the DigiLocker platform, developed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and the MoRTH's mParivahan mobile app can be used by citizens to access their official documents in electronic form. In line with the Information Technology Act, 2000, these digital records are deemed legally valid and equivalent to original physical documents.
Additionally, the advisory notes that the Insurance Information Bureau (IIB) uploads data related to new vehicle insurance policies and renewals to the VAHAN database on a daily basis. This information is reflected on the mParivahan and eChallan apps. If an active insurance policy is visible in the vehicle's digital profile, there is no requirement to carry a physical copy of the insurance certificate.
How to Add a Driving Licence on the DigiLocker App?
Step 1: Go to the official DigiLocker website at www.digilocker.gov.in or download the app.
Step 2: Sign up using your phone number and create a username and password for the account.
Step 3: Once you have created your account, link your Aadhaar Card with your DigiLocker account.
Step 4: In the next step, go to the 'Issued Documents' section on the dashboard.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
With juvenile on board, pay 2x fine for breaking traffic rules
NEW DELHI: The road transport ministry has proposed doubling of penalty for traffic rule violation by people driving with children, a move that will ensure safety and responsibility. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It has also proposed a "merit and demerit (positive and negative) point system" for all drivers based on their compliance with or violation of traffic rules. The changes have been proposed as part of amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, and these have been circulated among ministries for their feedback, TOI has learnt. Sources said the proposal of doubling penalty for traffic rule violation has been made considering rampant non-compliance of norms by parents and family members driving with children and by buses owned or hired by schools to transport students. The higher penalty is aimed at making both drivers and vehicle owners responsible. However, a section of road safety experts feel that any addition to the list of offences may end up only as a "better" legislative exercise and another avenue for corruption, if not implemented objectively. "Even now traffic cops catch and penalise drivers only for half a dozen offences such as speeding, drunk driving, jumping red signal, using phone and not wearing seatbelt or helmet, while the MV law covers over 100 offences. How will cameras installed identify if a juvenile is sitting in the rear seat of a car and will police personnel stop vehicles and check the age of people sitting inside? While framing laws and policies we don't think of India but Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and big cities," an expert said. As far as the proposal of "merit and demerit" points system for drivers is concerned, govt will set a threshold for demerit points and any driver accumulating negative marks beyond that will face the risk of suspension and cancellation of his/her driving licence. The ministry has also proposed to link insurance premium to behaviour of drivers, which will be reflected through positive and negative points. Sources said the proposed amendments include mandatory driving test for DL holders applying for renewal before expiry of licence, if they have violated traffic rules.
Hans India
21 hours ago
- Hans India
Social media monitors us constantly, need to regulate: Centre tells HC
Bengaluru: There was an urgent need for regulation in the digital space, due to the constant surveillance by social media, rising cybercrime, and the evolving threat landscape, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on the X Corp (formerly Twitter) case over content takedown directives. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, argued that internet intermediaries like 'X' must act responsibly and cannot claim the same constitutional rights as individuals. The hearing, before Justice N Nagaprasanna, pertained to X Corp's challenge to the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. It had earlier contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, often used to justify takedown directives, cannot serve as an independent source of executive power to block content. It said that blocking orders can only be issued through due process under Section 69A read with the IT Rules and not via direct instructions under Section 79. Highlighting the extent of digital surveillance, Mehta told the court: 'Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool. Many public figures ask visitors to leave their phones outside because these devices have effectively become recorders. We are being continuously monitored by social media,' he said. The Solicitor General also touched upon the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence, calling it a developmental boon but also a potential noted that legal frameworks must evolve to address the threats posed by technological advances. Dismissing X Corp's claim that it enjoys rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), Mehta asserted that such protections are reserved for individuals, not platforms. 'X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections,' he said, adding that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India had clarified that content on public platforms can be regulated in public interest. The case will be heard again on July 18.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
ETtech Explainer: X, Centre at loggerheads over social media misuse
In a legal battle on accountability versus liberty, the government of India and Elon Musk's microblogging platform X are slugging it out in the Karnataka High Court. At the eye of the storm are the government's content-blocking orders and issues arising out of them. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Indian government and Elon Musk's X are engaged in a legal battle before the Karnataka High Court over the question of accountability versus liberty. The microblogging platform has argued that the government's content-blocking orders hinder its business. In response, the government has advocated for justified action against misleading content on social matter has raised questions over the Information Technology Act, 2000 provisions that mandate taking down problematic content and grant 'safe harbour' to intermediaries that host take a look at arguments set forth so far by both parties and their prospective implications:In its plea before the Karnataka High Court, X has asked for the scrapping of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules as unconstitutional. It also wants the court to declare that the government cannot take down content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and only the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with the IT Rules, allows 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, mandates that intermediaries should take down unlawful content following a court order or appropriate government notification under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, which rescinds 'safe harbour' against criminal liability granted to such entities if they fail to take down information after being notified.X has been vocal about takedown orders from the government, calling them unjustified and detrimental to its business in a hearing earlier this month, KG Raghavan, representing X in the matter, had told the court that every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" government official had been authorised to issue content takedown orders, which evoked sharp rebuke from the government's the legal spat is unfolding as Musk is looking to launch and expand his companies—Tesla and Starlink—in Indian government has been proposing regulations for content on social media platforms to curb the proliferation of harmful the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that X has been trying to shirk its responsibility by hiding behind 'safe harbour' provisions. The platform allowing unlawful content in the name of free speech is endangering democracy, Mehta the hearing on Friday, the law officer presented before the court a verified account of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' on X to make the point that creating fake accounts and getting them verified are easy on the platform."We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation. It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," Mehta told the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, pressing his point that many instances of online harm fall into a regulatory grey explained that the legal framework includes both severe and minimal interventions and advocated for cautious, proportionate responses in certain court will now hear the matter next on July the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack in April, several social media accounts across platforms were blocked by the Indian government to check the spread of misinformation amid heightened bilateral tensions. While the accounts were primarily from Pakistan, some Indian accounts were affected in the action as May 9, X blocked its own Global Government Affairs account, a day after revealing that it was asked by the government to restrict 8,000 accounts of prominent news organisations and individuals. The social media platform said the government threatened significant fines and imprisonment of its employees upon failure to comply. The account was later July 6, official accounts of the global news portal Reuters and Reuters Global were withheld in India. While the IT Ministry denied issuing any order to this effect, X said that it was asked to block 2,355 accounts, along with the two from Reuters, under Section 69A of the IT response, the government blamed X for delaying the restoration of the two accounts and denied its claims that it wanted to block any international news ongoing spat has also brought into focus the 'safe harbour' accorded to internet intermediaries against third-party content they host. In his arguments, Mehta has noted that safe harbour is not an absolute right but a privilege granted to intermediaries who adhere to a written submission to a parliamentary committee, the government had said that it is reconsidering the concept of safe harbour to curb the spread of fake news. Changes in provisions would affect all social media platforms operating in India, not just X.
