Law Updates

Latest notifications, circulars, orders and compliance changes.

From

Department

Reset

Tip: Use date range and department to narrow down results.

Showing 3 of 3 result(s)

Clear filters

Subject

MoRTH Vehicle Safety Standards Amendment 2026: New AIS Rules & Deadlines

Summary: A vehicle may look ready for the market, but does it meet the latest safety requirements? For automobile manufacturers in India, this question has become more important following a new notification from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Through Notification S.O. 5723(E), dated 19 October 2026, the Ministry has amended several vehicle safety requirements relating to frontal crashes, side collisions, pedestrian protection, electric powertrains, vehicle security systems and Event Data Recorders (EDRs). The notification was published in the Gazette of India on 21 October 2026. The important point for manufacturers is that these requirements do not all start on the same date. Some revised Automotive Industry Standards (AIS) will apply to new vehicle models from October 2027, while others will take effect in stages until 2032. This means automobile manufacturers need to check their vehicle categories, understand the revised standards and plan the relevant testing and approval activities before the applicable deadlines. The MoRTH Vehicle Safety Standards Amendment 2026 is particularly relevant for businesses developing new passenger vehicles, manufacturers updating existing models and companies supplying safety-related vehicle systems. Understanding the changes early can help businesses avoid confusion over which standards apply and when they must be followed. Notification at a Glance Particulars Details Issuing Authority Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) Notification Number S.O. 5723(E) Notification Date 19 October 2026 Gazette Publication Date 21 October 2026 Governing Legislation Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Relevant Rules Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Earlier Notification Amended S.O. 1365(E), dated 13 December 2004 Main Changes Revised AIS vehicle safety requirements and implementation dates Covered Areas Crash protection, pedestrian safety, electric powertrain safety, immobilisers, EDRs and foot controls Affected Businesses Manufacturers of applicable vehicle models and other relevant automotive businesses Major Implementation Period October 2027 to October 2032 Legal Status Published amendment with future-dated technical requirements The notification has been issued under Section 109(3) and Section 110(1)(k) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 124(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Important: The notification was published in October 2026, but this does not mean every revised technical standard became mandatory that month. Manufacturers must follow the implementation date, and applicability conditions stated for each requirement. Understanding the Vehicle Safety Rules in India Before looking at the new requirements, it helps to understand how vehicle safety compliance works in India. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provide the legal framework for vehicle regulation. Within this framework, the government specifies technical standards that apply to different vehicles and their systems. Many of these standards are known as Automotive Industry Standards (AIS). An AIS standard may deal with how a vehicle performs during a crash, the design of a particular safety system or the testing needed to establish compliance with technical requirements. For example, one standard may address passenger protection during a frontal collision, while another deals with pedestrian safety, or vehicle security. Manufacturers must identify the standards applicable to their vehicle types and follow the relevant legal and technical requirements. What Has the Government Changed? The October 2026 notification makes amendments to the earlier government notification S.O. 1365(E), dated 13 December 2004. It replaces specified entries relating to vehicle safety standards and introduces revised provisions with different implementation dates. The changes cover: Occupant protection during frontal and side collisions. Pedestrian and vulnerable road user safety. Fuel-system and electric-powertrain safety in rear collisions. Frontal collision restraint systems. Event Data Recorder requirements. Mandatory immobiliser fitment for M1-category vehicles. Revised requirements for vehicle foot controls. The amendment does not introduce a separate universal AIS registration or certification process for all automobile businesses. Instead, it changes particular technical requirements within India's existing vehicle safety framework. Which Vehicles Are Covered Under the MoRTH Safety Amendment 2026? One of the first things manufacturers should check is whether the new requirements apply to their vehicle category. Different vehicle types have different safety requirements. A provision for a passenger car should not automatically be treated as a requirement for every bus, truck, two-wheeler or electric vehicle. India's vehicle classification framework includes the following categories: Vehicle Category Meaning M1 Vehicles carrying passengers with not more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat M2 Passenger vehicles with nine or more seats in addition to the driver's seat and gross vehicle weight up to five tonnes M3 Passenger vehicles with nine or more seats in addition to the driver's seat and gross vehicle weight exceeding five tonnes N1 Goods vehicles with gross vehicle weight up to 3.5 tonnes N2 Goods vehicles with gross vehicle weight above 3.5 tonnes and up to 12 tonnes N3 Goods vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 12 tonnes The notification expressly refers to M1-category vehicles in the provisions relating to mandatory immobilisers and revised foot control arrangements. It also refers to M and N category vehicles for certain alarm-system and immobiliser requirements. For several collision safety requirements, however, the notification refers to vehicles specified in the relevant AIS standard. That distinction matters. A manufacturer cannot decide whether a requirement applies simply by looking at the title of the standard. The complete vehicle category and applicability conditions must be checked. What About Electric Vehicles? Electric vehicles are not automatically exempt from general vehicle safety requirements. Where an electric vehicle falls within a category covered by an applicable AIS standard, the manufacturer must assess the relevant obligations. The amended rear-impact safety requirement under AIS-101 (Rev. 1) is particularly important because it addresses electric-powertrain safety as well as fuel-system protection. However, the notification should not be confused with the separate rules governing electric vehicle batteries, battery waste management or EPR registration. What Are the New AIS Vehicle Safety Requirements in 2026? The amendment covers several technical standards. Each one deals with a different safety concern and has its own compliance timeline. Revised Frontal Collision Safety Requirements Under AIS-098 (Rev. 1) A frontal collision is one of the situations for which vehicle safety systems must be assessed. AIS-098 focuses on protecting occupants during an offset frontal collision. An offset collision happens when only part of the vehicle's front section takes the main impact. Because the force is not spread equally across the front of the vehicle, the vehicle structure and occupant-protection systems have an important role in reducing injury risks. Under the revised notification, AIS-098 (Rev. 1) will apply from: 1 October 2027 for new models. 1 October 2028 for all applicable models. The earlier AIS-098/2008 standard continues according to its stated transition conditions. For automobile manufacturers, the change means that relevant new vehicle development programmes should be reviewed against the revised standard before the October 2027 date. Manufacturers of models already in production must also consider the October 2028 implementation requirement where applicable. This may involve examining vehicle structural design, occupant-protection systems, crash-testing arrangements and technical compliance evidence. The actual testing conditions and performance criteria must be taken from AIS-098 (Rev. 1), rather than assumed from the Gazette's short description. New Side-Impact Safety Requirements Under AIS-099 (Rev. 1) Side collisions can create serious risks for passengers because the impact occurs closer to the vehicle's seating area. AIS-099 deals with occupant protection during a lateral or side collision. The government has introduced the revised AIS-099 (Rev. 1) standard with the following implementation dates: New models: 1 October 2027. All applicable models: 1 October 2028. The revised standard replaces the earlier applicable AIS-099/2008 requirement according to the notified transition dates. For manufacturers, this creates another compliance milestone. Businesses developing new vehicle models should review the applicable side-impact protection requirements while planning their vehicle design and testing activities. Manufacturers should also check whether the technical evidence supporting existing models needs to be reviewed or updated under the applicable approval rules. The notification does not itself provide detailed crash-test measurements. These must be established from the relevant final AIS standard. Pedestrian Safety Requirements Under AIS-100 (Rev. 1) Vehicle safety is not only about passengers sitting inside the vehicle. It also concerns people walking on or near roads. A collision between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian can result in serious injuries, particularly when the front of the vehicle strikes the person's legs or other parts of the body. AIS-100 addresses the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users during collisions with motor vehicles. The October 2026 amendment introduces AIS-100 (Rev. 1) for vehicles specified in the standard. The notification provides two important dates: 1 October 2028: Implementation of the revised standard for specified new models. 1 October 2032: Mandatory use of the FlexPLI testing tool under the relevant pedestrian protection requirement. What Is FlexPLI Testing? FlexPLI stands for Flexible Pedestrian Leg Impactor. It is a specialised testing device used to assess how the front of a vehicle may affect a pedestrian's lower leg during a collision. The test helps evaluate injury-related responses, particularly those involving the leg and knee. The government has provided a later implementation date for mandatory use of this testing tool. This means vehicle manufacturers should distinguish between the introduction of the revised pedestrian protection standard and the subsequent FlexPLI testing requirement. Businesses developing vehicles covered by AIS-100 (Rev. 1) should review both provisions while planning their technical testing activities. The notification does not expressly give a separate all-model implementation date for the revised AIS-100 entry. Rear-Impact Safety for Fuel Systems and Electric Powertrains Under AIS-101 (Rev. 1) What happens to a vehicle's fuel system or electric powertrain when another vehicle strikes it from behind? This is the safety concern addressed by AIS-101 (Rev. 1). A rear collision can affect systems located within or near the impact area. Depending on the vehicle's design, damage to a fuel system or electric powertrain can create additional safety risks. The government has introduced revised requirements concerning the protection of these systems in rear-impact conditions. Implementation date: 1 April 2029 for all applicable models. For conventional fuel-powered vehicles, manufacturers need to consider the fuel-system protection provisions covered by the standard. For electric vehicles, the relevant electric-powertrain safety requirements must be assessed. The actual obligations depend on the technical standard and vehicle category. For businesses manufacturing electric vehicles or supplying related systems, this is an important requirement to include in product development and testing plans. It does not, however, create a new standalone licence for electric vehicle manufacturers or battery suppliers. Frontal Collision Restraint System Requirements Under AIS-201 The notification also introduces AIS-201, which concerns occupant protection during frontal collisions with a focus on restraint systems. Restraint systems help protect vehicle occupants by managing their movement during a collision. For manufacturers, the design and performance of these systems form an important part of vehicle safety. The implementation dates under the notification are: Vehicle Model Category Implementation Date New models 1 October 2029 All applicable models 1 October 2031 These dates give manufacturers different timelines depending on whether the model is newly introduced, or falls within the broader all-model requirement. Businesses should review the final AIS-201 standard to understand its technical scope, performance criteria and applicable testing conditions. Specific requirements concerning individual restraint-system components should not be assumed without examining the relevant standard. Event Data Recorder Requirements Under AIS-192 The government has also included a requirement relating to Event Data Recorders (EDRs). An EDR is a vehicle system that records specified information associated with certain events, such as a collision. The information can be useful when investigating an accident or assessing how the vehicle's safety systems performed. Under the notification, AIS-192 has an implementation date of 1 October 2029. The published AIS-192 standard covers approval of M1-category vehicles with regard to their Event Data Recorders. For affected manufacturers, this means EDR compliance should be considered as part of the relevant vehicle approval and technical development process. The standard deals with specific event-related data requirements. It should not be confused with a general vehicle tracking or continuous surveillance system. The published AIS-192 standard also identifies information excluded from its scope, including location and driver-identifying information. Manufacturers should refer to the official standard for the precise data requirements and technical conditions. Mandatory Immobilisers for M1 Vehicles Under AIS-076 Vehicle security is another area covered by the amendment. An immobiliser is an electronic security system designed to prevent unauthorised operation of a vehicle. For example, an immobiliser can prevent a vehicle from starting unless the appropriate authorisation mechanism is recognised. The notification introduces mandatory immobiliser fitment for M1-category vehicles from 1 October 2027, with reference to AIS-076. The earlier provision covered vehicle alarm systems and immobilisers for M and N category vehicles if fitted. The new entry is different because it expressly makes immobiliser fitment mandatory for M1 vehicles from the specified date. Manufacturers of M1 category passenger vehicles need to check the applicable security system requirements before the October 2027 implementation date. The Gazette does not separately state new-model and all-model dates for this particular entry. Revised Foot Control Requirements Under AIS-035 (Rev. 1) The amendment also updates requirements relating to vehicle foot controls. Foot controls are the controls operated by the driver's feet, such as accelerator and brake pedals. Their arrangement and operation matter because they affect how drivers control a vehicle. The notification introduces revised AIS-035 (Rev. 1) requirements for the arrangement and mode of operation of foot controls. For M1-category new models under the relevant entry, the implementation date is 1 April, 2028. The notification also makes a corresponding change to Table A for new models from the same date. Manufacturers should examine whether the revised requirements affect their control arrangements, and technical approval documentation. The previous AIS-035:2006 provisions continue according to their stated transitional conditions. Complete Implementation Timeline: Vehicle Safety Standards 2027-2032 For automobile manufacturers, the most useful part of the notification is knowing which requirement applies and when. The following table brings the main deadlines together. Date Standard Requirement Applicability 1 October 2027 AIS-098 (Rev. 1) Offset frontal collision protection New models 1 October 2027 AIS-099 (Rev. 1) Side-impact occupant protection New models 1 October 2027 AIS-076 Mandatory immobiliser fitment M1-category vehicles 1 April 2028  AIS-035 (Rev. 1) Revised foot control requirements Specified new models 1 October 2028 AIS-098 (Rev. 1)  Offset frontal collision protection All applicable models 1 October 2028 AIS-099 (Rev. 1) Side-impact occupant protection All applicable models 1 October 2028 AIS-100 (Rev. 1) Pedestrian protection Specified new models 1 April 2029  AIS-101 (Rev. 1) Rear-impact fuel-system and electric-powertrain safety All applicable models 1 October 2029 AIS-201 Frontal collision restraint systems New models 1 October 2029 AIS-192 Event Data Recorder approval requirements Vehicles specified in the standard 1 October 2031 AIS-201 Frontal collision restraint systems All applicable models 1 October 2032 AIS-100 (Rev. 1)  Mandatory FlexPLI test tool Applicable pedestrian protection testing Source: MoRTH Notification S.O. 5723(E), published on 21 October 2026. The table should be treated as a planning reference, not as a substitute for reading the relevant standard. Manufacturers must confirm the vehicle category, model classification and exact applicability conditions before determining their compliance obligations. Old vs New Automotive Safety Standards: What Has Changed? Several revised requirements build on standards that already existed. This is important because the amendment does not mean every earlier vehicle safety standard stopped applying in October 2026. Safety Area Earlier Standard Revised Requirement Offset frontal collision AIS-098/2008 AIS-098 (Rev. 1) Side-impact protection AIS-099/2008 AIS-099 (Rev. 1) Pedestrian protection AIS-100/2010  AIS-100 (Rev. 1) Rear-impact fuel and electric powertrain protection Earlier applicable regulatory framework AIS-101 (Rev. 1) with notified 2029 implementation Frontal collision restraint systems Existing applicable vehicle safety requirements AIS-201 with 2029 and 2031 dates Event Data Recorders Existing applicable vehicle safety framework AIS-192 with 2029 implementation Foot control arrangements AIS-035:2006 AIS-035 (Rev. 1) Vehicle immobilisers AIS-076/2007 for specified systems if fitted Mandatory AIS-076 immobilisers for M1 vehicles from October 2027 The notification also retains historical entries concerning steering-impact requirements, steering-mechanism behaviour during head-on collisions and side-door impact protection. These include IS 11939:1996, AIS-096/2008 and IS 12009:1995, subject to the conditions stated in the amended entries. The earlier standards and their respective implementation histories should not be confused with the newly introduced future dates. For manufacturers, the most important distinction is between an existing requirement, a revised technical standard and a new implementation milestone. Vehicle Type Approval and Automotive Homologation in India Before a vehicle can be introduced into the market, manufacturers must address the vehicle approval requirements applicable under India's motor vehicle regulatory framework. Vehicle type approval, commonly discussed as part of automotive homologation, involves assessing a vehicle type against the applicable technical and regulatory requirements. These may cover safety, performance, emissions and other matters depending on the vehicle category. The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) provides vehicle certification and type approval facilities for different vehicle categories. Manufacturers should check the relevant approval route, and testing requirements for their products. How Do the Revised AIS Standards Affect Vehicle Approval? The October 2026 notification updates technical standards referenced under the existing regulatory framework. Where a revised standard becomes applicable to a vehicle, manufacturers need to assess its implications for testing and type approval. This may require reviewing whether existing vehicle designs and technical evidence meet the updated standard. The exact approval procedure will depend on the applicable vehicle category, governing rules and technical requirements. The notification does not establish a new universal certification portal, registration procedure or fixed approval fee for the revised standards. Will Existing Vehicle Approvals Need to Be Updated? This depends on the vehicle, the revised requirement and the applicable approval rules. A manufacturer should not assume that every existing approval automatically becomes invalid because a revised standard has been notified. Equally, an existing approval should not be assumed to satisfy a later revised technical requirement without reviewing the applicable transition and approval conditions. Manufacturers should confirm the position with the relevant approval authority, or recognised testing organisation where necessary. Does the Notification Introduce New Testing Fees? Notification S.O. 5723(E) does not prescribe a new schedule of testing fees or consultancy charges. Actual costs may vary depending on the type of vehicle, required technical testing, approval route and services involved. Businesses seeking vehicle testing or homologation services should obtain a scope-specific assessment rather than relying on a general cost estimate. How Will the New Vehicle Safety Standards Affect Businesses? The amended requirements can have different implications for different businesses within the automotive industry. Automobile Manufacturers For manufacturers, the main task is to identify which new requirements apply to their vehicle models. Businesses developing passenger vehicles may need to consider revised collision protection standards, vehicle security requirements and other applicable safety provisions. The staggered implementation dates also mean that a manufacturer may have different compliance deadlines for different models or safety systems. Reviewing these requirements during product development can help reduce the risk of discovering a technical gap close to an implementation date. Electric Vehicle Manufacturers Electric vehicle manufacturers should pay particular attention to the revised electric-powertrain safety requirements under AIS-101 (Rev. 1). Other collision safety provisions may also apply, depending on the vehicle category and the scope of the relevant standard. Manufacturers should distinguish these vehicle safety requirements from separate EV battery, environmental and waste management regulations. Automotive Component Manufacturers Businesses supplying vehicle structures, electronic security systems, restraint-related components or other safety-related products may be indirectly affected. Vehicle manufacturers may need updated components, technical specifications or supporting evidence to satisfy revised vehicle-level requirements. However, S.O. 5723(E) should not be interpreted as automatically creating an independent certification requirement for every component supplier. Vehicle Importers and Overseas Manufacturers Foreign manufacturers and businesses importing vehicles into India should assess whether the amended standards apply to their vehicle types under the relevant Indian approval framework. The notification does not itself create a general restricted import licence requirement. Import policy, vehicle approval and other applicable compliance requirements should be assessed separately. Automotive Testing and Approval Organisations The future implementation dates may influence the planning of testing and assessment activities. Affected manufacturers may need to coordinate their programmes with relevant testing and approval organisations. The practical implications will depend on the applicable standards, testing arrangements and regulatory procedures. What Should Automobile Manufacturers Do Before the Deadlines? The notification gives manufacturers time to assess their requirements, but the appropriate preparation will depend on their vehicle programmes. A useful compliance approach is to address the following areas. Identify the Vehicle Category: Start with the vehicle's correct regulatory classification. This helps determine whether a particular provision applies to an M1 vehicle, another passenger vehicle category or a goods vehicle. Review the Applicable AIS Standards: Identify the standards that apply to each affected model. Do not assume that all the standards in the notification apply to the same vehicle. Check the Correct Implementation Date: Confirm whether the standard applies to new models, all applicable models or a separately defined group. The deadlines should be recorded against the relevant vehicle programmes. Review Vehicle Design and Technical Evidence: Manufacturers should consider whether existing design information, testing evidence and approval documents address the revised requirements. Where the technical standard introduces changed requirements, further assessment may be necessary. Plan Relevant Testing and Approval Activities: If a revised requirement affects the vehicle's testing or approval position, the manufacturer should plan the necessary technical work. This may involve coordination with appropriate laboratories or vehicle approval organisations. Maintain a Compliance Calendar: A model-specific compliance calendar can help engineering, product development and regulatory teams work against the applicable deadlines.  The calendar should be updated when a relevant standard or official notification changes. These actions are practical compliance recommendations. They are not a separate mandatory application procedure created by the October 2026 notification. Common Compliance Mistakes Manufacturers Should Avoid The most serious compliance problems can begin with a misunderstanding of what a notification actually requires. Treating every new standard as immediately applicable: The October 2026 publication date is not the implementation date for every revised requirement. Ignoring the distinction between new and existing models: Some standards have different deadlines for new models and all applicable models. Applying every requirement to every vehicle: The scope of each AIS standard must be checked separately. Using an earlier technical standard without checking its transition date: Manufacturers need to understand when an older requirement gives way to a revised version. Confusing vehicle fitness testing with homologation: Routine vehicle fitness testing and new-vehicle type approval are different regulatory activities. Assuming a new AIS standard creates a separate BIS certificate: A notified AIS requirement does not automatically mean that a manufacturer must obtain a separate BIS certification under an unrelated scheme. Leaving technical preparation until the deadline: Where design changes or additional testing are required, late assessment can create operational difficulties. The notification does not introduce a new standalone table of fines or penalties for these specific amendments. Any statutory consequence must be assessed under the relevant governing provisions. How Corpseed Can Help with Vehicle-Related Compliance Vehicle-related businesses often deal with several regulatory requirements, depending on whether they manufacture vehicles, operate testing facilities or undertake other automotive activities. Understanding the correct legal requirement is important before beginning a registration, approval or compliance process. Corpseed provides regulatory consultancy services across several business sectors and has a published service for Vehicle Testing Centre setup. Businesses interested in establishing a vehicle testing centre can explore Corpseed's Vehicle Testing Centre service for information about setup-related requirements and available assistance. It is important to distinguish this service from automotive crash-testing and new-vehicle homologation. The October 2026 Gazette concerns vehicle safety standards, whereas vehicle fitness testing centres operate under their own regulatory requirements. Manufacturers seeking automotive compliance services, vehicle type approval assistance or homologation consultancy should first confirm the exact support available for their project. Professional consultancy may help businesses understand applicable processes, but hiring a consultant is not itself a mandatory requirement under this Gazette notification. Planning an automotive or vehicle-related regulatory project? Contact Corpseed to discuss the nature of your business, the compliance requirement and the available service options. Website: www.corpseed.com Contact: +91 75586 40644 Key Takeaways The MoRTH Vehicle Safety Standards Amendment 2026 changes several safety requirements for specified vehicles in India. The changes relate to frontal and side-impact protection, pedestrian safety, rear-impact protection for fuel systems and electric powertrains, restraint systems, Event Data Recorders, immobilisers and foot controls. The implementation dates begin in October 2027 and continue in stages until October 2032. For automobile manufacturers, the important task is not simply to know that a new notification has been issued. They must understand which standards apply to their vehicle models, when each requirement takes effect and whether their existing technical compliance arrangements need to be reviewed. Businesses should also distinguish between mandatory legal requirements and recommended preparation measures. Early regulatory assessment can support more organised product development and testing plans while reducing the risk of misunderstanding the applicable requirements.

Subject

CMVR Draft Amendment 2026: Proposed Changes to Registration, Permits and Vehicle Forms

Summary: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has issued G.S.R. 728(E), dated 10 August 2026, proposing further amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The draft was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary No. 664 dated 13 August 2026. The CMVR draft amendment 2026 covers several separate areas of vehicle regulation. It proposes to extend trade-certificate eligibility to certain automotive component manufacturers, revise temporary-registration periods, digitise national permit authorisation, extend specified age limits for cleaner-fuel vehicles and update Forms 16, 20, 21, 34, 35, 46 and 48. These proposals are not final legal requirements at present. The draft says the rules will take effect only from the date on which the final rules are published in the Official Gazette. Businesses should therefore read the notification as a consultation proposal, not as an immediate compliance order. Notification at a Glance Particular Verified details Issuing authority Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India Document type Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India Notification number G.S.R. 728(E) File number RT-11036/57/2024-MVL Notification date 10 August 2026 Gazette details Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), No. 664 Gazette date 13 August 2026 Governing legislation Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Rules proposed to be amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Main provisions affected Rules 33, 53B, 87 and 88 Forms affected Forms 16, 20, 21, 34, 35, 46 and 48 Consultation period 30 days from the date Gazette copies are made available to the public Proposed commencement Date of final publication in the Official Gazette Immediate compliance duty None created by this draft alone The notification was issued under powers cited from sections 39, 64, 88 and 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was published for consultation under section 212(1) of the Act. Legal Status and Present Enforceability A draft placed in the Gazette allows affected persons to examine the proposal and send objections or suggestions before the Central Government decides whether to finalise it. The proposed provisions do not become binding merely because the draft has been published. Clause 1(2) states that the rules will come into force from the date of their final publication in the Official Gazette. A later final notification is therefore required before these amendments can operate as law. In the draft attached above, there is no compliance period. Only the period of public consultations has been mentioned as of now. Until a new amendment comes into effect, businesses must comply with the existing guidelines. Until this update dated 18 August 2026, no further final notification was identified from the official sources available. Any further final notifications can be obtained from the portals of MoRTH and e-Gazette. Public Consultation and Submission of Comments The Central Government will consider objections and suggestions received within the prescribed consultation period. Any person may submit comments on the proposed rules. The draft provides a period of 30 days from the date on which copies of the Gazette notification are made available to the public. It does not print a fixed calendar closing date. Stakeholders should confirm the date of public availability before calculating the last date for submission. No provision makes it mandatory to use any particular response format or even a set of accompanying documents. A good illustration should show the pertinent draft clause, state the issue at hand and then offer an alternate and supporting explanation. The Regulatory Framework The principal law which regulates the motor vehicles of India at the central level is known as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This includes the aspects related to registration, permits, vehicle usage, transportation and powers of transport authorities. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 include the provisions used for the implementation of the Act. The draft relies on section 39, specified clauses of section 64, section 88(14)(a) and section 211 of the Act. Section 39 contains the basic rule that a motor vehicle must not be driven in a public place or caused or allowed to be driven unless it is registered, subject to the Act's exceptions. Section 64 gives the Central Government rule-making powers concerning registration and related matters. Section 88 concerns permit validity and national or inter-State permit arrangements, while section 211 deals with fees. The notification follows the prior-publication procedure under section 212(1). This procedure allows the Government to publish proposed rules, receive feedback and then decide the wording of the final amendment. The principal Central Motor Vehicles Rules were originally published through G.S.R. 590(E) dated 2 June 1989. The draft notification's closing note leaves the reference to the latest amendment blank. This drafting gap is discussed later in this article. Scope and Applicability The proposals do not apply to one single class of business. Each amendment affects a different group. Stakeholder or activity Proposed coverage Main issue DSIR-approved automotive component manufacturers engaged in R&D Proposed inclusion under Rule 33 Main issue DSIR-approved automotive component manufacturers engaged in R&D Covered by proposed Rule 53B(2)(a) Six-month temporary registration and possible extensions Owners of specified fully built vehicles Covered by proposed Rule 53B(2)(b) Forty-five-day temporary registration Owners of specified fully built vehicles Covered by proposed Rule 53B(2)(b) Electronic applications, authorisation period, fees and form changes Battery-operated, hydrogen-fuel-based and natural-gas-driven vehicles Covered by proposed Rule 88(3A) Five-year extension of specified national-permit age limits Dealers seeking trade certificates Affected through proposed changes to Form 16 Dealership authorisation number and VAHAN auto-fetch Vehicle owners applying through Form 20 Affected Aadhaar-linked mobile number and finance details Financiers, owners and registering authorities Affected through Forms 20, 21, 34 and 35 Agreement or loan-account details and record references The draft does not create a blanket relaxation for all component manufacturers or all cleaner-fuel vehicles. Each benefit is tied to the conditions written in the proposed provision. What the CMVR Draft Amendment 2026 Proposes Trade certificates for eligible automotive component manufacturers The proposed amendment to Rule 33 would insert the words “or automotive component manufacturer” at three places. It would also add an explanation defining the type of component manufacturer covered. For this purpose, an automotive component manufacturer would need to satisfy both of the following conditions: It must be approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). It must be involved in research and development for developing new products for the automotive industry. The definition does not encompass all spare parts suppliers and components dealers. The proposed definition only encompasses approved DSIR manufacturers who engage in the mentioned research and development activity. Practically speaking, the new definition is intended to ensure that eligible component manufacturers can be included in the Rule 33 trade certificates system. It could enable legal transfer and processing of motor vehicles related to the relevant R&D activity. Revised temporary-registration periods under Rule 53B The draft proposes to replace Rule 53B (2) and its provisos. It creates separate periods for an incomplete chassis and for specified fully built vehicles. Chassis without a body Temporary registration would remain valid for six months from the date of issue where a body has not been attached to the chassis. If the chassis remains in a workshop beyond six months for body building, or because of an unforeseen circumstance outside the owner's control, the registering authority may extend the original period. The proposed extension is not automatic. The owner would need to: Apply in Form 20B. Pay the appropriate fee specified in Rule 81. Satisfy the registering authority that an extension is justified. The authority may grant one or more extensions of 30 days each, as it considers appropriate. The draft does not state a numerical limit on the number of 30-day extensions. It leaves the decision to the registering authority. Specified fully built vehicles A 45-day temporary-registration period is proposed for a fully built motor vehicle that is: To be altered for conversion into an adapted vehicle or To be registered in a State other than the State where the dealer is located. This is a targeted provision. The draft does not state that every fully built vehicle will automatically receive 45 days under this clause. Exclusion from the proposed sub-rule The substituted provision would not apply to a temporary registration granted under the proviso to section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That category is expressly kept outside the proposed Rule 53B(2). Electronic national permit authorisation and multi-year validity The draft proposes two important changes to Rule 87. First, an application under Rule 87(1) would be made electronically in Form 46. Either would accompany it: An electronic receipt showing payment of ₹1,000 per year or A bank draft for that amount. Second, authorisation would be granted electronically in Form 47. An applicant could choose a period of one year or more, subject to a maximum of five years at one time. The draft states that ₹16,500 must be paid for each year of the authorisation period. The amount is to be deposited in the national permit account for a permit allowing operation throughout India. The payable authorisation fee would depend on the number of years selected, calculated at the stated rate of ₹16,500 for each year. The draft separately retains the ₹1,000-per-year amount in proposed Rule 87(1). Applicants should not treat the two references as interchangeable. Final portal instructions and the wording of the notified rules will need to be checked before payment. The commercial benefit of a multi-year authorisation may be fewer annual renewal exercises. At the same time, businesses choosing a longer term would need to plan for a larger upfront payment and maintain the underlying vehicle and permit compliance throughout the selected period. Five-year age-limit extension for cleaner-fuel vehicles The draft proposes a new Rule 88(3A). It would extend the age limits specified in Rule 88(1), (2) and (3) by five years for: Battery-operated vehicles Hydrogen-fuel-based vehicles and Vehicles driven by any natural gas. Rule 88 deals with the age of motor vehicles for national-permit purposes. The proposal therefore concerns the specified national-permit age limits, not the general service life of every vehicle for every legal purpose. The attached draft does not define “any natural gas” in this provision. It also does not set out a separate application form for claiming the five-year extension. Operational treatment may depend on the final rule and the manner in which vehicle fuel details are recorded in VAHAN. For fleet operators, the proposal could allow eligible cleaner-fuel goods vehicles to remain within the national-permit age framework for five additional years. This is a likely effect of the draft, not a current entitlement until the amendment is finalised. Forms, Portals and Digital Process Changes The draft updates seven forms. The changes generally move towards portal-based data retrieval, clearer vehicle identification and more detailed finance or permit records. Form 16: Application for a trade certificate The first paragraph would identify the applicant as a holder of Form 16A and require the dealership authorisation certificate number. After that number is entered, information at serial numbers 1, 2, 2A and 4 would be automatically fetched from the VAHAN portal. The revised table would require: GST registration number PAN Udyam Aadhaar, where applicable and Corporate Identification Number, where applicable. Dealers would need to ensure that the information held across VAHAN, GST, PAN and corporate records is consistent. The draft does not explain the correction process if the auto-fetched information is outdated or incorrect. Form 20: Application for registration of a motor vehicle Serial number 5(A) would refer to the owner's Aadhaar-linked mobile number. The financing note would also include the agreement number or loan-account number where the vehicle is subject to hypothecation. In the final paragraph, the reference to Forms 23 and 24 would be replaced with a reference to Form 24 only. Form 21: Sale certificate Part IV would include the agreement number or loan-account number where the vehicle is held under a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation arrangement. This may improve matching between the sale record, financing arrangement and registration application. Dealers and financiers may need to align their data-entry procedures if the change becomes final. Form 34: Entry of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement The last paragraph would refer only to Form 24 instead of Forms 23 and 24. Form 35: Termination of hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement The first paragraph would add the agreement number or loan-account number. The closing reference would also change from Forms 23 and 24 to Form 24. Form 46: Application for authorisation of tourist or national permit The proposed Form 46 changes include: Adding the vehicle registration number before serial number 1. Auto-fetching available information from VAHAN after the registration number is entered. Allowing the applicant to provide information that is not available through VAHAN. Deleting existing serial number 12. Renumbering serial number 13 as serial number 12. Recognising electronic payment receipts in addition to bank drafts. Revising the national-permit fee declaration to show ₹16,500 for each year requested. Removing the words “or thumb impression” after “Signature.” The current official Form 46 available on the Parivahan portal contains a consolidated ₹16,500 national-permit fee reference and allows signature or thumb impression. The draft would align the form with the proposed annual fee calculation and electronic process. Form 48: Application for national permit The draft would add the vehicle registration number before serial number 1 and revise the information in serial numbers 5 and 6. The form would request details of: Valid registration certificate Valid insurance certificate Valid Pollution Under Control certificate Valid fitness certificate Pending challan history and Any national permit previously held for the vehicle. The wording at serial number 7 would clarify that the field concerns permits other than national permits. Serial numbers 8, 12 and 14 would be deleted. Existing serial numbers 9, 10, 11 and 13 would then become 8, 9, 10 and 11. As with Form 46, available information would be auto-fetched from VAHAN after the registration number is provided. The applicant would supply information not available through the portal. The words “or thumb impression” would be removed after “Signature.” Rule-and-Form Change Map Provision Proposed change Main affected group Practical meaning Rule 33 Add eligible automotive component manufacturers DSIR-approved component manufacturers involved in automotive R&D Possible access to trade-certificate framework Rule 53B(2) Replace temporary-registration validity rules Owners, body builders, dealers and registering authorities Six months for incomplete chassis 45 days for specified fully built vehicles Rule 87 Electronic application and authorisation up to five-year term National permit applicants and authorities Multi-year selection and annual fee calculation Rule 88(3A) Add five years to specified age limits Cleaner-fuel national-permit vehicles Longer proposed age eligibility under Rule 88 Form 16 Add dealership number and business identifiers Dealers VAHAN-based auto-fetch and additional identifiers Form 20 Aadhaar-linked mobile and loan/agreement details Vehicle owners and financiers More detailed registration and finance data Form 21 Aadhaar-linked mobile and loan/agreement details Dealers, buyers and financiers Better linkage of sale and finance records Forms 34 and 35 Update record references Form 35 adds loan/agreement number Owners, financiers and registering authorities Revised hypothecation records Form 46 Registration-number-based auto-fetch and annual fee declaration Tourist and national permit applicants More digital processing and revised payment statement Form 48 Auto-fetch of vehicle and compliance details National permit applicants Greater reliance on VAHAN data and pending-challan history Data Quality and VAHAN System Dependencies Several proposed changes depend on information being correctly recorded in VAHAN. Auto-fetching can reduce repeated manual entry, but it also makes source-data accuracy more important. Likely operational issues include: A mismatch between the registration certificate and VAHAN record An outdated mobile number Incorrect fuel classification Missing insurance, fitness or Pollution Under Control data Pending challans that have been paid but are not yet updated A difference between loan details held by the financier and the data entered in registration forms and Business identifiers that do not match dealership or company records. These are pragmatic threats and not problems identified through the notice. The draft does not mention how an applicant may contest or rectify an erroneous auto-fetched data field. The draft does not provide a plan B in case of any portal outage either, other than the fact that Forms 46 and 48 provide for submission of data which is not available via VAHAN. Fees, Validity and Extension Proposals Item Proposed amount or period Condition Temporary registration for chassis without body Proposed amount or period From date of issue Further extension for incomplete chassis 30 days per extension Form 20B, Rule 81 fee and registering-authority approval Temporary registration for specified fully built vehicle 45 days Adapted-vehicle conversion or registration in another State Rule 87(1) application payment reference ₹1,000 per year Electronic receipt or bank draft National permit authorisation under Rule 87(2) ₹16,500 per year One to five years selected by applicant Maximum authorisation period at one time 5 years Applicant may choose one year or more Maximum authorisation period at one time 5 years Eligible battery, hydrogen or natural-gas vehicle The draft does not specify an implementation cost for software updates, data correction, professional assistance or internal process changes. Impact on Businesses Automotive component manufacturers DSIR-approved component manufacturers carrying out automotive product R&D may gain a clearer route into the trade-certificate system. Eligible businesses should review whether their approval and R&D activity match the proposed definition. Other component businesses should not assume they are covered. Dealers and vehicle manufacturers Dealers may need to maintain accurate dealership authorisation, GST, PAN, Udyam and CIN information so that Form 16 can be processed through VAHAN. Sales and registration teams may also need to capture finance agreement numbers consistently across Forms 20 and 21. Body builders and owners of incomplete chassis The proposed six-month period gives a clear base validity for a chassis awaiting body construction. The extension mechanism may help where work takes longer, but approval remains discretionary and requires Form 20B and the applicable fee. Fleet operators and national permit holders Multi-year authorisation could reduce annual filing repetition. It would also require careful cash-flow planning because the ₹16,500 amount is calculated for every year selected. Fleet records, vehicle documents and challan data would need to remain accurate for Form 48 processing. Cleaner-fuel commercial fleets The proposed five-year extension under Rule 88 may support longer national-permit eligibility for qualifying battery, hydrogen and natural-gas vehicles. Operators should treat this as a proposed permit-age benefit, not a universal extension of vehicle life or fitness validity. Financiers Agreement or loan-account numbers would become more visible across registration and hypothecation records. Financiers may need to standardise the identifiers shared with dealers, borrowers and registering authorities. MSMEs Smaller dealers, body builders, transport operators and component manufacturers may benefit from clearer digital processing. They may also face short-term work in cleaning master data, training staff and adjusting internal forms or software. Benefits and Implementation Challenges Likely benefits Qualifying component manufacturers may receive clearer recognition for R&D-related trade-certificate needs. Temporary-registration periods would be differentiated according to the vehicle's actual condition and intended next step. Multi-year authorisation may reduce repeated annual applications. VAHAN auto-fetch could reduce duplicate data entry. Loan-account and agreement references may improve consistency in financed-vehicle records. Cleaner-fuel national-permit vehicles may receive a longer age window. Likely challenges Businesses may need to correct inconsistent VAHAN and internal records. Multi-year permit authorisation may increase upfront payment requirements. The draft does not explain correction and appeal procedures for auto-fetched data. Removing the thumb-impression option may raise an accessibility question for applicants who cannot sign. State-level system and workflow changes may be required before the proposed digital process works consistently. Stakeholders need clarity on the treatment of terms and drafting gaps identified in the notification. Drafting Gaps and Matters Requiring Clarification The notification contains several points that may benefit from correction or clarification before final publication. Blank amendment title Clause 1 names the proposed rules as the Central Motor Vehicles “(…………… Amendment) Rules, 2026.” The amendment number is left blank. Incomplete latest-amendment reference The closing note says the principal rules were last amended through a G.S.R. number and date, but both fields are blank. This makes it difficult to identify the precise consolidated baseline used for the draft. Missing sub-clause number in the Form 46 amendment Clause 11 moves from sub-clause (iv) to sub-clause (vi). There is no sub-clause (v) in the English or Hindi text supplied. This appears to be a numbering gap. Duplicate letter in the English Form 48 list Under proposed Form 48, serial number 5 labels both “Valid fitness certificate” and “Pending challan history” as item “d.” The Hindi version uses separate fourth and fifth letters. The English list may therefore require correction. Use of “Udyam Aadhaar” in Form 16 The draft uses “Udyam Aadhaar (if applicable).” Businesses may need clarity on whether this is intended to refer to a legacy Udyog Aadhaar number, the present Udyam Registration number or another identifier. Auto-fetch correction and system-failure process The draft allows applicants to enter information when it is not available through VAHAN, but it does not expressly explain what happens when information is available and incorrect. It also does not set out a process for portal failure, data disputes or delayed updates from connected systems. Removal of thumb-impression option Forms 46 and 48 would remove the words “or thumb impression.” The draft does not explain the alternative authentication arrangement for an applicant who is unable to sign. These points do not invalidate the draft by themselves. They are suitable subjects for stakeholder comments because they may affect interpretation or implementation. What Businesses Should Do Next? Because the notification is still a draft, businesses do not need to implement the proposed provisions as final law. They should, however, use the consultation period to prepare and provide evidence-based feedback. Check whether the proposal affects the business. Review the relevant rule or form instead of relying on a general summary. Confirm the current procedure. Continue following the rules and portal instructions presently in force until a final amendment commences. Review master data. Compare VAHAN information with registration certificates, permit records, insurance, fitness, Pollution Under Control, dealership and finance records. Assess operational effects. Estimate the impact of multi-year payments, temporary-registration periods, form changes and system updates. Prepare comments where necessary. Cite the exact clause and suggest practical wording or safeguards. Track final publication. The final rules may accept, reject or modify parts of the draft. Update procedures only after confirmation. Revise internal checklists, dealer systems, finance documents and permit workflows once the final wording and commencement date are known. How Corpseed Can Help The proposals touch different parts of the motor vehicle regulatory system. A business may need support only for the clause relevant to its operations. Corpseed's motor vehicle regulatory compliance services can assist stakeholders in understanding the draft and preparing for the final framework. Corpseed can support businesses with: Applicability assessment for dealers, component manufacturers, body builders and fleet operators Clause-by-clause interpretation of the proposed CMVR changes Review of trade-certificate eligibility for qualifying automotive component manufacturers Temporary-registration and vehicle-registration process guidance National permit documentation and authorisation support Review of VAHAN, company, dealership and vehicle-record consistency Compliance gap assessment for revised Forms 16, 20, 21, 34, 35, 46 and 48 Preparation and review of reasoned stakeholder representations and Monitoring of the final notification and assistance with process updates after commencement. Professional support cannot guarantee that the Government will accept a consultation comment or approve an application. It can help a business identify the correct provision, organise its records and avoid acting on an incorrect reading of a draft. Automotive businesses affected by G.S.R. 728(E) may contact Corpseed for document-specific motor vehicle regulatory compliance services and assistance in preparing for the final rules. Key Takeaways The CMVR draft amendment 2026 proposes a broad set of registration, permit and form changes. It is a consultation document and does not itself make the proposals legally binding. G.S.R. 728(E) is dated 10 August 2026 and appears in Gazette No. 664 dated 13 August 2026. The draft proposes trade-certificate access for a defined group of DSIR-approved automotive component manufacturers engaged in R&D. It proposes six months of temporary registration for an incomplete chassis and 45 days for specified fully built vehicles. National permit authorisation may be issued electronically for up to five years, with ₹16,500 payable for each year selected. Specified Rule 88 age limits may be extended by five years for battery, hydrogen and natural-gas vehicles. Several forms would rely more heavily on registration-number-based VAHAN auto-fetching. Comments may be submitted within 30 days from the date Gazette copies are made available to the public. Businesses should monitor the final notification before changing compliance procedures.

Department: MoRTHAuthority: MoRTH

🏷️24-08-2026

Subject

MoRTH Proposes Changes to Motor Vehicle Ownership Transfer Rules

Summary: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has proposed changes to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. These are the motor vehicle ownership transfer rules that decide how a vehicle moves from one owner to another. The draft notification was issued on 21 July 2026. The proposal touches many people. It affects vehicle owners, authorised dealers, and the way vehicles move between dealers before they reach a new buyer. Under the proposed changes, three forms get special attention: Form 29C, the new Form 29CA, and Form 30. The draft also proposes a limit on how many times a vehicle can move between authorised dealers, and a six-month limit on how long a dealer can hold a vehicle without transferring it. The VAHAN portal is expected to play a bigger role in the proposed digital process. This notification is still a draft. It is not a final rule yet. This article explains, in simple words, what MoRTH has proposed, what each form does, how the transfer process may work, and what vehicle owners and dealers should do while the proposal is still open for comments. Background of the Motor Vehicle Ownership Transfer Framework Existing Legal Framework for Vehicle Ownership Transfer The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governs vehicle ownership in India, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. These rules explain how a vehicle's ownership record is created, updated, and transferred. Every registered vehicle has an owner recorded with a registration authority. When a vehicle changes hands, this record must also change. This keeps a clear trail of who owns which vehicle at any given time. Role of Authorised Dealers and VAHAN An authorised dealer is a dealer who holds a valid authorisation certificate, given in Form 29B. Many people do not sell their old vehicle directly to a new buyer. Instead, they hand it over to a dealer, and the dealer finds a buyer. Because the vehicle can sit with a dealer, or move between dealers, before it reaches a final buyer, tracking who has the vehicle at each stage matters. This is where VAHAN comes in. VAHAN is the government's digital vehicle database. It stores registration details and, under the proposed rules, would play a bigger part in recording each step of a transfer. Role of Important Forms Vehicle transfer already uses a few standard forms. Here is what each one does. Form Simple Meaning Main Purpose Form 29 Notice of transfer Records transfer information Form 29B Dealer authorisation Shows dealer's authorisation Form 29C Owner-to-dealer delivery Records delivery to authorised dealer Form 29CA Dealer-to-dealer delivery Records movement between authorised dealers Form 30 Ownership transfer Records transfer to the new owner What has Changed Under the Proposed MoRTH Rules? Ownership Transfer Can Be Processed Through Any Registering Authority in the State Right now, transfer work is often tied to one specific registering authority. Under the proposed changes, an owner or dealer could go to any registering authority in the state where the vehicle is registered, instead of being limited to one office. Valid RC, Insurance and PUC Will Matter The draft rules propose that a vehicle's ownership cannot be transferred if its registration certificate (RC), insurance certificate, or Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate is not valid. In simple words, the paperwork has to be in order before the transfer can go through. Pending Challans, Taxes and User Fees Can Block Transfer If there are any unpaid traffic challans, any tax demands, or unpaid user charges, then according to the suggested guidelines, the transfer shall not be allowed. This will compel the owner or dealer to pay all the due amounts before transferring a vehicle. New Form 29CA for Dealer-to-Dealer Transfers This is one of the biggest proposed changes. Right now, there is no separate form to record a vehicle moving from one authorised dealer to another. The draft rules propose Form 29CA for exactly this purpose. It would be filed electronically on the portal, and the portal would generate an acknowledgement number automatically once it is submitted. Under the proposal, this form must be filed every time the vehicle moves to a different dealer, or comes back to the original dealer. Limit on Two Transfers Between Authorised Dealers It is suggested that a vehicle cannot be continuously transferred between dealers indefinitely. The draft suggests that the maximum limit of transfers in possession could be two transfers between authorised dealers before the transfer of ownership takes place using Form 30. Six Months’ Limit for Vehicles in Possession of Dealers A time limit is also suggested. The vehicle should not remain in the possession of a dealer beyond six months after the date the owner files Form 29C without transferring ownership using Form 30. Six-Month Limit for Vehicles Held by Dealers The proposal also sets a time limit. A dealer should not hold a vehicle for more than six months from the date the owner filed Form 29C, without transferring ownership through Form 30. VAHAN Will Auto-Fetch Vehicle Details Under the proposed framework, once someone enters a vehicle's registration number on a form, details such as the owner's name and address, the vehicle's make, chassis number, and engine number would be automatically pulled from the VAHAN portal. This should reduce repeated manual entry. Proposed Change What It Means Form 29CA Tracks dealer-to-dealer movement Two-transfer limit Vehicle cannot keep moving between dealers without Form 30 Six-month limit Dealer cannot keep vehicle indefinitely Valid documents RC, insurance and PUC must be valid Pending dues Challans, taxes and user fees can stop transfer VAHAN integration Vehicle details can be auto-fetched What is Form 29CA and Why is it Important? What Is Form 29CA? Form 29CA is a new form proposed under the draft rules. It is meant to record the fact that one authorised dealer has handed over a vehicle to another authorised dealer. When Will Form 29CA Be Used? It would be used every time a vehicle moves from one authorised dealer to another, and also when the vehicle is sent back to the original dealer. Who Will File Form 29CA? The authorised dealer who currently holds the vehicle would file the form when handing it over to another authorised dealer. What Information Will It Record? Form 29CA is proposed to record: Vehicle registration number Dealer details Dealer authorisation details Delivery information Relevant vehicle documents Required declarations Once the form is submitted successfully, the portal is proposed to generate an acknowledgement automatically. Form Used For Form 29C Owner gives vehicle to dealer Form 29CA One authorised dealer gives vehicle to another Form 30 Ownership moves to buyer/new owner How Will the Proposed Vehicle Ownership Transfer Process Work? Step 1: Owner Gives Vehicle to an Authorised Dealer The process begins when the registered owner hands over the vehicle to an authorised dealer and files Form 29C. Step 2: Dealer Checks the Vehicle Before moving forward, the dealer is expected to check the vehicle's records, including its RC, insurance, PUC, pending challans, tax dues, user fees, any legal cases, and any finance, lease, or hypothecation status. Step 3: Vehicle May Move to Another Dealer If the vehicle moves to a second dealer, the current dealer would file Form 29CA to record this handover. Step 4: Dealer-to-Dealer Movement Is Limited The vehicle cannot keep bouncing between dealers forever. The draft proposes a limit of two dealer-to-dealer transfers before an owner change becomes necessary. Step 5: Ownership Transfer Through Form 30 Once a buyer is found, ownership is transferred to that buyer through Form 30. This is what finally changes the registered owner on record. Step 6: Six-Month Deadline If ownership is not transferred through Form 30 within six months of the original Form 29C filing, the proposal says ownership would automatically shift to the dealer who last held the vehicle. What Are the Key Conditions for Transferring a Vehicle to an Authorised Dealer? The draft rules propose that a vehicle cannot be transferred to, or between, authorised dealers if any of the following apply: Invalid registration certificate Invalid insurance Invalid PUC certificate Pending challans Pending tax demand Unpaid user fees An ongoing criminal case A case involving prohibited goods A pending accident case The vehicle is under superdari (police custody) The vehicle is under a hire-purchase, lease, or hypothecation agreement Issue Effect Invalid RC Transfer may be blocked Invalid Insurance Transfer may be blocked Invalid PUC Transfer may be blocked Pending challan Transfer may be blocked Pending tax/user fee Transfer may be blocked Legal/financial restriction Dealer transfer may be blocked What Is the Proposed Six-Month Rule for Authorised Dealers? When Does the Six-Month Period Start? The clock is proposed to start from the date the registered owner files Form 29C, handing the vehicle to the first authorised dealer. What Must Happen Within Six Months? Within this window, ownership should be transferred to a buyer through Form 30. What Happens If Six Months Are Crossed? If the six months pass without a Form 30 transfer, the draft rules propose that ownership would automatically move to the last authorised dealer who held the vehicle. This change would be reflected on the VAHAN portal. What If the Vehicle Has Moved Between Dealers? Here is a short example. Suppose the Owner hands the vehicle to Dealer X, who passes it to Dealer Y, who passes it to Dealer Z. If Form 30 is not completed within six months of the original Form 29C filing, the proposal says ownership would shift to Dealer Z, the last dealer holding the vehicle. Key Point: The six-month period could become an important deadline for authorised dealers and used vehicle businesses to track closely, since missing it changes who legally owns the vehicle. What is the Two-Transfer Limit Between Authorised Dealers? The draft proposes that possession can move between authorised dealers only twice, counting any transfer back to a previous dealer, before an ownership change through Form 30 becomes compulsory. What Role Will the VAHAN Portal Play Under the Proposed Framework? Under the proposed changes, VAHAN is expected to support more of the ownership transfer process digitally. Entering a registration number could auto-fetch details like the owner's name, address, chassis number, and engine number directly into the relevant form. Form 29CA's acknowledgement would be generated electronically. Ownership changes, including the automatic ones after the six-month deadline, are proposed to be reflected directly on the portal. Registered owners are also proposed to get an electronic intimation whenever their vehicle is delivered from one dealer to another. What is the Implementation Timeline and Regulatory Status? 1. Is This a Final Rule? No. This is a draft proposal, not a final rule. 2. What Is the Objection Period? The notification allows a 30-day window for objections and suggestions from the public. 3. When Will It Become Effective? If finalised, the rules would generally take effect after final publication in the Official Gazette. 4. What Should Businesses Do Now? Read the proposal carefully Review existing dealer processes Check vehicle records for pending dues or invalid documents Prepare for digital filing of Form 29CA Track further developments from MoRTH Wait for the final notification before treating the proposal as a binding requirement Why Has MoRTH Proposed These Changes? The proposed provisions appear aimed at better tracking of who physically holds a vehicle at any point, especially when it passes through more than one dealer. They also seem to focus on building clearer digital records through VAHAN, putting more checks on outstanding dues and document validity before a transfer, and limiting how long a vehicle can sit with dealers without a final ownership change. Overall, the draft rules seem to be pushing dealer-to-dealer vehicle movement toward the same kind of digital, traceable record that already exists for owner-to-buyer transfers. Who Will Be Affected and What Is the Impact on Businesses? Stakeholder Possible Impact Vehicle Owners More checks before transfer Authorised Dealers New Form 29CA and deadline tracking Used Vehicle Dealers More control over inventory movement Used Vehicle Buyers Better ownership trail Dealership Networks Need to track dealer-to-dealer movement Finance/Lease Cases Restrictions may affect transfers Impact on Used Vehicle Businesses Businesses that regularly move vehicles between dealer networks may need to plan inventory movement more carefully, since a vehicle cannot keep shifting between dealers without eventually completing an ownership transfer. Impact on Vehicle Owners Owners handing a vehicle to a dealer would want to make sure their documents and dues are clear beforehand, since these can block the process. Impact on Used Vehicle Buyers Buyers stand to benefit from a clearer ownership trail, since dealer-to-dealer movement would be recorded, not left informal. How Can Businesses Achieve Compliance Under the Proposed Rules? Before Taking a Vehicle Check the RC Check the insurance Check the PUC Check for pending challans Check for pending taxes Check for pending user fees Check for legal cases Check for finance, lease, or hypothecation status During Dealer-to-Dealer Movement File Form 29CA Keep the acknowledgement Record dealer details Track the number of transfers Keep vehicle documents updated Before Six Months End Identify the buyer Complete Form 30 Update ownership records Keep proof of transfer What Are the Benefits of the Proposed Framework? Better ownership transparency Better dealer accountability Stronger digital records Better vehicle tracking Clearer dealer-to-dealer movement Better document checks before transfer Better due diligence for used vehicle buyers Greater VAHAN integration Is This a Right Decision or an Additional Compliance Burden? Why It Could Help Benefit What It Means in Practice Better tracking of vehicle possession At every stage, the portal would show which dealer currently holds the vehicle, instead of this being informal knowledge. A clear ownership trail from owner to buyer Every handover, from the original owner through each dealer to the final buyer, would have a matching form and record. Stronger checks on documents before transfer RC, insurance, and PUC validity would be checked before a transfer goes through, reducing the chance of an invalid vehicle changing hands. More accountability for dealers Since Form 29CA names the dealer handing over the vehicle and the one receiving it, responsibility at each step becomes traceable. Fewer disputes over dues Pending challans, tax demands, and user fees would need to be cleared before transfer, reducing the chance of a buyer inheriting unresolved dues. Where It Could Add Work Compliance Task Why It Adds Work Filing Form 29CA for each dealer-to-dealer movement Every single handover between dealers, including a return to the original dealer, would need a separate filing. Keeping more detailed records Dealers would need to retain acknowledgements, dealer details, and declarations for each Form 29CA filed. Monitoring the six-month deadline Dealers would need a reliable way to track the six-month window from the original Form 29C date for every vehicle in their possession. Tracking the two-transfer limit Businesses handling multiple vehicles would need a system to count how many times each vehicle has moved between dealers. Extra document checks before every handover RC, insurance, PUC, challans, tax dues, and legal case status would need to be checked before each transfer, not just the first one. Greater dependence on the portal working smoothly Since acknowledgements, auto-fetched details, and ownership updates are proposed to run through VAHAN, any portal downtime could delay the process. Overall View The proposal may add more paperwork and process tracking for dealers in the short term. At the same time, it could make vehicle ownership records clearer and easier to track for everyone involved, from the original owner to the final buyer. What Business Opportunities Could These Changes Create? If finalised, the proposal could open up practical opportunities such as vehicle ownership transfer assistance, documentation support for dealers, dealer compliance support, regulatory advisory services, record management tools, compliance deadline tracking, used vehicle due diligence checks, and ongoing regulatory monitoring for businesses that deal in high transfer volumes. What Should Vehicle Owners and Authorised Dealers Do Now? For Vehicle Owners Keep RC, insurance, and PUC valid Clear pending dues before handing over a vehicle Keep Form 29C records safe Check the dealer's authorisation before handover Track the transfer status of the vehicle For Authorised Dealers Check Form 29B authorisation status Prepare for the proposed Form 29CA process Record every dealer-to-dealer transfer Track the two-transfer limit Track the six-month deadline Maintain vehicle documents properly These are preparation steps for a draft proposal. They are not instructions from a final law, since the rules have not yet been finalised. How Can Corpseed Help Businesses Navigate the Proposed Vehicle Compliance Framework? 1. Regulatory Compliance Advisory Explaining what the draft rules propose, in plain terms, for owners, dealers, and used vehicle businesses Flagging which parts of daily operations may need changes if the rules are finalised Advising on how to align internal processes with the proposed framework early 2. Documentation Assistance Helping check RC, insurance, and PUC validity before a vehicle changes hands Assisting with preparing and organising documents needed for Form 29C, Form 29CA, and Form 30 Supporting dealers in maintaining Form 29B authorisation records 3. Ownership Transfer Support Guiding owners and dealers through each step of the proposed transfer process Helping identify when Form 30 becomes necessary before the six-month deadline Assisting with resolving pending challans, tax dues, or user fees that could block a transfer 4. Dealer Compliance Support Helping dealers set up a process for filing Form 29CA at every dealer-to-dealer handover Assisting with tracking the two-transfer limit across multiple vehicles Supporting dealer networks in keeping consistent records across locations 5. Monitoring of Regulatory Updates Tracking the draft's progress through the 30-day objection period Alerting businesses to any changes between the draft and the final notification Keeping clients informed once the rules are officially published in the Gazette 6. Compliance Process Guidance Advising on record management systems for Form 29CA filings and acknowledgements Helping set up deadline tracking for the six-month rule Supporting internal checklists so document and dues checks happen before every handover Key Takeaways The proposal to change the motor vehicle ownership transfer rules is still a draft, not a final law. Form 29CA is proposed for recording dealer-to-dealer vehicle movement. Dealer-to-dealer transfers would be limited to two before an ownership change is required. Six months is proposed as the maximum period a dealer can hold a vehicle before ownership transfer. Valid vehicle documents and cleared dues would become important conditions for transfer. VAHAN would support more digital data handling, including auto-fetching vehicle details. Final requirements will depend on the notification that is ultimately published after the objection period ends.

Department: MoRTHAuthority: MoRTH

🏷️29-07-2026