Bombay High Court: In a suo motu Public Interest Litigation initiated in 2013 concerning the deplorable condition of roads and recurring pothole-related deaths and injuries in Maharashtra, an Interim Application was filed by the petitioner, seeking Court’s intervention, wherein, the Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Sandesh D. Patil, JJ., opined that despite several orders having been passed by the Court since 2015, the matter required cognizance each year during monsoon due to continuing deaths and injuries caused by potholes and open manholes, constituting a gross violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held that the right to have roads in reasonable condition was an integral part of Article 21, and held that civic authorities and state agencies had failed to discharge their constitutional obligations despite repeated directions and assurances, noting that merely reminding authorities of their duties without awarding compensation would amount to rendering lip service to citizens’ fundamental rights.
Therefore, the Court directed that compensation ranging from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 be paid for injuries and Rs. 6,00,000 for deaths caused by potholes or open manholes, constituted Committees for determination and disbursement of compensation, mandated recovery of compensation amounts from officers concerned, who were responsible, upon inquiry. Furthermore, the Court ordered strict disciplinary and penal action including blacklisting against those found guilty, directed that all potholes be attended to within forty-eight hours of being reported.
Background
The present matter originated from a Public Interest Litigation that was registered suo motu by the Court on 29-7-2013, following a letter from Justice G.S. Patel (as he then was) to the Chief Justice. The letter highlighted the pathetic condition of roads in Mumbai and their grave consequences, including hardships, inconveniences, and casualties, particularly fatal and spinal injuries to two-wheeler riders caused by potholes. On 13-8-2013, the Court passed an order referring to a Government Resolution, by which a committee had been constituted by the State Government to deal with road-related issues within Greater Mumbai. Thereafter, an intervention application filed by petitioner was allowed by the Court.
In furtherance of the said application, the Court issued several comprehensive interim directions to all Municipal Corporations and authorities, mandating them to maintain roads in proper condition, establish grievance redressal mechanisms with multiple modes of receiving complaints, display information boards at digging sites, and use modern scientific techniques for road construction and repair. The Court recognized that the right to have properly maintained streets was a fundamental right of citizens. When the matter came up for hearing, the Court observed that although several directions had been issued, most had not been complied with, and only partial compliance was reflected in the affidavits filed by respondents. On 7-8-2015, the Court noted that a single-window system for redressal of grievances regarding potholes had been incorporated through a Government Resolution and directed all authorities to ensure its effective implementation. However, during the hearing, the petitioner again raised a grievance that the single-window system was not functioning effectively.
Throughout 2016 and 2017, the Court continued to pass orders addressing recurring issues. The Court noted that the toll-free line had not been working since January 2016 and that the website was closed and appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court. The Court recorded that the “MCGM 24×7” mobile app system was not working properly and directed the Corporation to provide WhatsApp facility in addition to the existing system.
In 2018, the Court passed a detailed judgment and order giving comprehensive final directions, explicitly holding that the right to have roads in reasonable condition was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed all authorities to maintain streets properly, establish effective grievance redressal mechanisms, take measures for protecting rights of visually impaired persons, ensure open manholes were not left unprotected, and issue policy decisions regarding road contracts and technical specifications. On 20-11-2019, a Contempt Petition was filed, highlighting non-compliance through charts and newspaper articles.
Despite these extensive judicial interventions, the problem persisted. Between 2019 and 2024, multiple affidavits were filed by various respondents claiming compliance, but the Court continued to note deficiencies. The Court expressed serious concerns about uncovered open manholes and noted that out of 74,682 manholes, only 1,908 had protective grills, less than 10 per cent, falling significantly short of earlier directions.
On 8-10-2024, the Court held that while respondents could not be held guilty of willful contempt as they had substantially complied with earlier orders, in view of public welfare and recognition of the fundamental right under Article 21, the Court revived Suo Motu PIL, invoking the principle of continuing mandamus to ensure ongoing monitoring and full compliance. Between July 2024 and September 2025, several incidents of fatalities due to bad roads were reported and documented. On 12-9-2025, the Court recorded that instructions were to be taken by corporations and authorities regarding payment of medical expenses and compensation for deaths and injuries caused by potholes. The matter was reserved for orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present Interim Application was filed by Lok Hitkarini Sabha, seeking intervention in the PIL.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court observed that potholes have become perennial problem and have been so for almost three decades. The newly constructed roads develop potholes within days of the onset of the monsoon which indicated poor quality of materials and substandard workmanship in road construction. The Court criticised that despite the bold assurances given by the civic authorities and other agencies of the State to act with alacrity and to create an effective mechanism to address these recurring hazards the condition of the roads continued to deteriorate every monsoon. Even after several orders and judgements being passed by the present Court, the same issues concerning potholes, open manholes, resultant deaths and injuries, continued every year.
The Court emphasised that every person is entitled to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to have roads was a reasonable condition is a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Good and safe roads are an essential component of such a meaningful life. The Court slammed MCGM, stating that being one of the richest corporations in Asia, it had not been able to provide proper civic amenities, including safe roads, to the taxpaying public even after issuance of detailed directions by the Court in 2015, and nothing tangible had been done.
The Court emphasised that it was imperative that all civic bodies and State agencies discharge their constitutional and legal obligations by ensuring proper roads throughout the year. Failure to do so, resulted in a clear infringement of the valuable fundamental rights of citizens. The Court observed that majority of persons sustaining injuries or losing their lives due to potholes were two-wheeler riders, largely belonging to the middle and low-income groups who were often the sole breadwinners of their families, and their loss results in irreparable financial and emotional hardship to their dependents. Therefore, refusing to award compensation, would amount to rendering mere lip service to the citizens’ fundamental right to safe roads, a right which has been grossly violated. Such compensation was founded on strict liability for violation of fundamental rights. Furthermore, the Court stated that the compensation awarded in such cases was of exemplary damages imposed against the wrongdoer for breach of public duty.
The Court opined that it was duty of all authorities to ensure that roads are constructed and maintained in such a manner that they do not require repairs for a minimum period of five to ten years. Unless those responsible for pothole-related deaths and injuries are made personally accountable, and are compelled to bear monetary liability from their own pockets, they will not understand the gravity of the issue.
Accordingly, based on the above-mentioned observations and recognising the seriousness of the pothole deaths in the financial capital of India, and reiterating the fundamental right for safe roads, the Court issued the following directions:-
-
Compensation for deaths caused by potholes or open manholes, a sum of Rs.6,00,000 shall be paid by the authority concerned and in case of injury, compensation ranging from Rs.50,000 to Rs.2,50,000, shall be paid, depending upon the nature and gravity of the injury.
-
For the determination of compensation, Committees shall be constituted.
-
Meetings of the Committee shall be held at a venue to be mutually decided by the parties.
-
The Committee may act suo motu or on an application submitted by the legal heirs of deceased persons or by injured persons.
-
Compensation may be disbursed by the Committee from the fines or amounts recovered from the contractors. In the absence of such funds, the Authority concerned shall bear the liability.
-
The Committee so constituted shall identify victims of death or injury caused due to potholes or open manholes.
-
Strict disciplinary and penal action shall be taken against contractors and officers found guilty of defective or substandard work. Such action shall include blacklisting, imposition of penalties, and initiation of appropriate departmental or criminal proceedings, in accordance with law.
-
All potholes, once brought to the notice of the authority concerned, shall be attended to forthwith and, in any event, within forty-eight hours. Failure to do so shall constitute gross negligence and shall warrant departmental action against the responsible officers and contractors.
-
Compensation, as directed, shall be disbursed within six to eight weeks from the date of receipt of the claim. Failure to do so shall render the officer personally responsible for the delay. In such cases, the compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim until payment.
-
Wide publicity shall be given by the State of Maharashtra to these directions so that affected persons or families may approach the Committee for relief.
[High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, PIL No. 71 of 2013, decided on: 13-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by:Justice Revati Mohite Dere
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Amicus Curiae and Intervenors: Jamshed Mistry, Amicus Curiae, Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, Dipesh Siroya, Siddharth Ingle (through VC), Rashid Khan, Intervenor
Advocate for the Petitioners- Ruju Thakker, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP; R.A. Salunkhe, AGP, M.M. Pabale, AGP; Anil Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate i/by Ms. Reshmarani Nathani, Joel Carlos, K.H. Mastakar, Oorja Dhond, Mandar Limaye, Tanu N. Bhatia, Sarang S. Aradhye (through V.C.), A. S. Rao, Neeta Patil i/by Mr. S.R. Nagolkar, Swati Sagvekar, Aniruddha A. Garge, Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Anjali Kotecha i/by Motiwalla & Co., Sandeep Mahadik a/w Mr. Shishankar D. Patil, Aparna Devkar, Aparna D. Vhatkar, I.M. Khairdi, Ravindva S. Pachundkar, Gaurav Ugale a/w Mr. Vaishnav Brahmankar, Swapnil Mhatre i/by Mr. Shriram Kulkarni, Shailesh Chavan i/b Mr. Milind Deshmukh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
