Critically evaluate the recent amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in enabling barrier-less tolling.

The Central Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Rules, 2026 shift toll enforcement from physical barriers to post-facto digital recovery, forming the legal backbone of the Multi-Lane Free Flow (MLFF) system launched on NH-48 [1][2]. They are enabling, yet incomplete.

Enabling merits

• Plugging the legal gap: define "unpaid user fee" — where the ETC system records a vehicle's passage but the fee is not received — giving recovery a firm basis once barriers vanish [1].
• Compliance leverage: link clearance of dues to the NOC for ownership/inter-state transfer and Certificate of Fitness renewal, with mandatory disclosure in Form 28 — a strong evasion deterrent [1].
• Efficiency dividend: underpin barrier-less flow that cut operational cost from ~15% to 3–4% (~₹6,000–7,000 crore saved annually) and ~81,000 tonnes of CO₂, easing the ~41,500-vehicle Day-1 flow at Chorayasi [3][2].

Critical limitations

• Subordinate, not statutory: recovery rests on rules under the National Highways Act, 1956, not a dedicated enforcement statute, inviting legal challenge.
• Data dependence: accuracy hinges on VAHAN records and ANPR reads; cloned, obscured or misread plates risk wrongful demands.
• Privacy vacuum: mass ANPR capture proceeds without a matching data-safeguard notification under DPDP principles.
• Federal friction: fitness and transfer levers sit with states, demanding Centre–state coordination.

By converting a technological pilot into an enforceable regime, the amendments are a necessary reform. Pairing them with statutory clarity, database audits and privacy safeguards would make barrier-less tolling both efficient and citizen-trusted.