Supreme Court: In a writ petition concerning the issue about the safety of India’s National Highways, based on the report titled “Road Accidents in India — 2017”, which revealed that 53,181 persons were killed during the year 2017 on highways in India, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ., gave the following directions:
-
Implementation of Duties of Highway Administration:
The Highway Administration, constituted under Section 3(1) of the 2002 Act, was directed to submit an affidavit within three months from the date of the order, detailing the steps taken to implement the duties and functions as outlined in Rule 3 of the 2004 Rules (as amended on 16th September 2019). The Joint Secretary (Highways) of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) was responsible for filing this affidavit, along with the necessary supporting documents.
-
Publicity for the ‘Rajmargyatra’ Mobile Application:
The Highway Administration and the Union of India were directed to widely publicise the ‘Rajmargyatra’ mobile application. This publicity was to be carried out across print, electronic, and social media platforms. Additionally, toll and food plazas along highways were to prominently display information regarding the app’s availability. This step was to be completed within three months from the date of the order.
-
Reporting Complaints and Action Taken via ‘Rajmargyatra’ App:
Respondent 8 was directed to file details regarding various categories of complaints lodged through the ‘Rajmargyatra’ mobile application, including complaints related to unauthorized occupation of highway lands and the action taken in response. Furthermore, the NHAI (respondent 2) was directed to file a compliance report regarding the creation of a grievance redressal portal for reporting such encroachments. Both affidavits were to be filed within three months.
-
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Highway Inspections:
The Highway Administration was ordered to issue a detailed SOP regarding the constitution of teams for regular inspections of the National Highways. This SOP was to include guidelines for collecting data related to unauthorised occupations of highway lands.
-
Constitution of Surveillance Teams:
The Union of India (respondent 1) was instructed to form surveillance teams, comprising State Police or other forces, tasked with regularly and punctually patrolling the National Highways. This action was to be reported within three months.
-
Consideration of Suggestions by the Amicus Curiae:
The Highway Administration and the respondents concerned were directed to review and discuss the suggestions provided by the amicus curiae on 5-10-2024. These suggestions were to be considered in the upcoming meeting of the Highway Administration, and appropriate steps were to be taken for their implementation.
The Court took note of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) and the Highway Administration Rules, 2004 (‘the 2004 Rules’).
The Court noted that under the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘1956 Act’), Section 4 mandates that National Highways vest in the Union of India. Additionally, under the 2002 Act, Section 23 specifies that highway land is to be regarded as the property of the Central Government. This legal framework places the obligation for the maintenance of National Highways squarely on the Central Government. Maintenance duties include ensuring that the highways remain in good condition, free of encroachments, and that appropriate safety measures are in place to minimize the risk of accidents.
The Court also highlighted the creation of the Highway Administration under the 2002 Act, which was officially established through a notification dated 16-09-2019. The administration consists of various key figures, including the Secretary, MoRTH, the Member-DG (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH, the Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), the Managing Director of the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), the Additional Secretary and Finance Advisor, MoRTH, and the Joint Secretary, MoRTH.
The Court, upon reviewing the earlier orders, identified that the primary concern was the removal of unauthorised occupation of highway lands under the power granted by Section 26 of the 2002 Act.
The Court noted that MoRTH had submitted an affidavit that included data on actions taken to address unauthorized occupations in some states. However, the Court observed that the actions taken so far were ineffective in addressing the issue. Consequently, detailed directions were issued on 18-03-2024 to ensure the removal of unauthorised encroachments from highway lands.
The Court further noted the efforts made by the Highway Administration regarding the development of a portal to handle complaints related to unauthorised encroachments on highway lands. The Highway Administration stated that there was a toll-free number (1033) available for citizens to report incidents, accidents, and unsafe driving conditions on national highways. However, the Court observed that it was not explicitly mentioned whether complaints about unauthorised occupations of highway lands could be lodged through the same toll-free number.
Instead of developing a dedicated portal, the Highway Administration pointed to the existence of a mobile application called “Rajmargyatra”. This app allows highway users to report incidents, hazards, and safety concerns. The app includes features like the submission of geo-tagged complaints (with photos, videos, and remarks) and allows users to file complaints regarding issues such as poor workmanship, potholes, and other concerns. Additionally, it provides a way for users to track the status of their complaints.
However, the amicus curiae raised several concerns about the app’s functionality:
-
The procedure for redressal of complaints was unclear.
-
There was no opportunity for complainants to provide feedback on whether their complaints had been resolved.
In response, the Highway Administration assured the Court that the Rajmargyatra app was being revamped to address these issues. Additionally, it was mentioned that a grievance redressal portal for reporting unauthorised encroachments on highways was being developed by the National Highways Authority of India (‘NHAI’). Once functional, this portal would allow users to:
-
Track the status of their complaints
-
View the actions taken regarding their complaints
-
Appeal decisions, if necessary.
The Court emphasised the mandatory duties of the Highway Administration under Rule 3 of the 2004 Rules, particularly as amended in 2019. The Court observed that these duties include Formulating Standard Operating Procedures (‘SOPs’) to guide the delivery of services related to highway management and the enforcement of provisions under the 2002 Act. However, the Court noted that there was no evidence provided to demonstrate that the Highway Administration had effectively carried out these duties.
Regarding the removal of unauthorised occupation of highway lands, the Court referred to Section 24 of the 2002 Act, which provides for the prevention of such encroachments. The Court stressed that Sections 24 and 26 of the 2002 Act must be fully implemented in their true spirit and letter, ensuring that unauthorized occupation is actively prevented and removed.
Regarding the regular inspection of highways, the Court agreed with the amicus curiae’s suggestions that:
-
Exhaustive circulars should be issued, specifying:
-
Names and designations of the members of the inspection teams.
-
Frequency and time intervals for inspections.
-
Allocation of highway stretches to the respective teams.
-
Timely reporting of encroachments by these teams.
-
Additionally, the Court emphasised the need to establish a dedicated surveillance team, involving the State Police, tasked with patrolling the National Highways to prevent unauthorized occupation of highway lands. Furthermore, the Court suggested that the National Highways be placed under surveillance using CCTV cameras to continuously monitor and prevent encroachments.
The Court also observed that this matter would require ongoing oversight, and thus, it would remain pending. For the time being, the Court issued the abovementioned directions.
The matter will next be taken up on 15-09-2025 for reporting compliance.
[Gyan Prakash v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) NO.1272 of 2019, decided on 21-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Abhay S. Oka
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Sneha Botwe, Adv. , Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath N.Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nitkita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sourav Roy, AOR Mr. Pranav Bafna, Adv. Mr. Anshu Deshoande, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv., Intervenor-in-person
