In a reaffirmation of the rights of citizens in response to the administrative negligence, the Supreme Court on 18.08.2025, determined that no tolls should be charged on roads marked by potholes, traffic jamming, and permanent road congestion. The Court noted that the pay of the user fee by the public is inseparably connected with the promise of safe travel without hindrance and regulation.Dismissing a batch of appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and its concessionaire, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria, upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision to suspend toll collection for four weeks on a congested stretch of National Highway between Ernakulam and Mannuthy.The Court termed the High Court to have acted in a citizen-centric manner, in the sense that it held that the long queues in traffic, fuel wastage, environmental harm, and the psychological burden to commuters of having to spend so much time to get to work was more than the commercial and contractual aspects.Background:The legal action was a result of a public-interest action filed to the Kerala High Court over the Edapally-Mannuthy section of NH-544 and, specifically, the Paliyekkara toll plaza in the Thrissur district. The petitioners grieved about excessive congestion on the road due to extended construction project, potholes, poor service roads, and inadequate traffic control and management that led to commuters spending hours stuck in traffic jams. The situation did not improve even after the High Court issued several orders to NHAI to correct the situation. This situation became worse to the extent that commuters have been reported to have been subjected to traffic congestions as long as 12 hrs, especially during weekends.Finally, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court issued an order on 06.08.2025 that the toll collection should be suspended within 4 weeks, with the authorities being required to fix the traffic congestion issues during the same timeframe. The High Court held that when access to the highway as such was seriously impaired, toll fees could not be collected, and remarked:“It is to be remembered that the public is obliged to pay the user fees at the toll for using the highway. It casts responsibility on the National Highways Authority to ensure smooth traffic without any barrier created by the NHAI or by its agents, who are the concessionaires. This relationship between the Public and the NHAI is bound by the tie of public trust. The moment it is breached or violated, the right to collect toll fees from the public created through statutory provisions cannot be forced on the public.”Aggrieved by the order both NHAI and the Concessionaire approached the Supreme Court.Supreme Court Observations:At the outset, the Supreme Court painted a grim picture of the toll-road ecosystem, placing the controversy in the real-life world of real people. The Court observed:“That, in a democracy, roads are laid on Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) contracts to ensure that the cost is collected from the users, when motor vehicle tax is remitted for their use on roads, is a sad reflection of free market. That, the successful bidder extracts much more than what is spent on construction and maintenance, is a comedy of errors. That, the roads fall into disrepair due to vagaries of nature and often rank neglect, is the stark reality. That, the toll collectors at the booths, often due to understaffing and overwork, behave like satraps, is a fact of life. That, the poor citizen is bound to wait for hours, in queue and in a cramped space, with the engine running but hardly moving, is a tragedy. That, the toll is really on the purse and the patience of the citizen, as also the environment, is the downside.”These observations established the manner in which the Court was going to decide them, and made it obvious that the case was not to be taken as a case of contracts or of revenue.Submissions on behalf of NHAI:On behalf of NHAI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the overall distance of the highway built under the BOT agreement was about 64.94 kilometres, which was between Ernakulam and Mannuthy. He argued that congestion was restricted to four known black spots that included Amballur, Perambra, Muringur and Chirangara where flyovers were being constructed and under passes were being built.It was further argued that the primary carriageway was not significantly affected and that congestion was due to service roads being damaged by monsoon. Such local disruption, according to NHAI, could not be used to suspend toll on the entire stretch. The Solicitor General also objected to paragraph 22 of the order of the High Court permitting the concessionaire to claim loss before NHAI on the ground that it was in effect liquidating NHAI with liability. It was argued based on DSC- Viacon v Lal Manohar Pandey (2015)15SCC509 that proportionate reduction in toll could at best be contemplated. Appearing on behalf of the concessionaire, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan said that the concessionaire was not the cause of the current impasse. He argued that though the concessionaire had a contractual obligation to keep the main carriageway in a maintained condition, the task at the black spots had been assigned to yet another contractor by the NHAI, who was not even impleaded in the case.It was argued that the maintenance operation depended on toll revenue, and that the suspension meant losses of close to 49 lakhs in a day and this threatened the ability of the concessionaire to sustain even the unimpacted stretches.Case of the Commuters:Jaayanth Muthuraj, senior advocate of the writ petitioners, responded to these submissions by citing to a series of directions made by the High Court that had not managed to elicit any meaningful response. He expressed the seriousness of the situation by pointing to a case of traffic jam of more than 12 hours on Ernakulam- Thrissur route.Analysis of the Supreme Court:The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the order of the High Court, and instead clearly supported its citizen-centric strategy, after hearing the opposing submissions. The Bench noted that the arguments provided by the NHAI and the concessionaire softened the plight of the commuters, environmental degradation, and wastage of fuel.The court said:“We cannot but agree with the reasoning of the High Court that: ‘The obligation of the public to pay a user fee under statutory provisions is premised on the assurance that their use of the road will be free from hindrances. When the public is legally bound to pay a user fee, they simultaneously acquire a corresponding right to demand unhindered, safe, and regulated access to the road. Any failure on the part of the National Highways Authority or its agents to ensure such access constitutes a breach of the public’s legitimate expectations and undermines the very basis of the toll regime’.”The Court further noted that even if congestion was confined to limited stretches, the cascading effect of traffic jams rendered the entire highway unusable.The Bench refusing the request to reduce the toll at a proportion, drew a distinction between the previous precedents by observing that the prior cases concerned minor repair, and that the present case involved a complete lock-jam. The Court reasoned that the bottleneck in a 65-kilometre stretch of five kilometres could cripple the whole stretch. To solve the issue of liability which was raised by NHAI, the Supreme Court made it clear that the remarks made by the High Court did not constitute a verdict of absolute liability. Any damage claims would have to rely on causation and may be appealed to the relevant court. Another issue observed by the Court with concern was that further construction work had been given to another contractor despite the fact that the concessionaire was supposed to maintain the entire stretch yet the Court did not comment on this point any further.In a concluding observation that encapsulates the spirit of the judgment, the Supreme Court stated:“In the meanwhile, let the citizens be free to move on the roads, for use of which they have already paid taxes, without further payment to navigate the gutters and pot-holes, symbols of inefficiency.”The Bench made it clear that as soon as a traffic flow is resumed, NHAI or the concessionaire would be at liberty to request the suspension to be lifted even before the four-week period is transportable.Seeing no need to intervene, the Supreme Court turned down all the appeals, affirmed interim order issued by Kerala High Court, and ordered further observation of the situation to make traffic easy.Civil Appeal No……….. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22579 of 2025) National Highways Authority of India and Anr. versus O.J. Janeesh & Ors.For Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Ankur Mittal, Adv. Mr. Abhay Gupta, Adv. Signature Not Verified Ms. Paromita Majumdar, AOR Mr. Ankur Saboo, Adv. Mr. Ashish Gajwani, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Vimal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Chawla, Adv. Ms. Smiti Veena, Adv. Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv. Mr. R.K. Mohit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sirkar, Adv. Mr. Pranay Shridhar Chitale, AOR For Respondent(s): Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. (for R-7) Mr. Ankur Chawla, Adv. Ms. Smiti Veena, Adv. Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv. Mr. R.K. Mohit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sirkar, Adv. Mr. Pranay Shridhar Chitale, AOR(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
