Karnataka High Court Links Safe Roads to Fundamental Rights, Orders NHAI to Act on Coastal Highways

Bengaluru, India – In a significant affirmation of citizen rights, the Karnataka High Court has directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other state authorities to take immediate remedial measures to ensure the safety and proper maintenance of critical coastal highways. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha, while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), underscored the government's duty to provide safe, motorable roads, implicitly linking this obligation to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The order, arising from the case of Akash S AND Union of India & Others (WP 28122/2025), addresses the perilous conditions of National Highway-66 and National Highway-275, particularly the stretch between Mangalore and Udupi. The petition was filed in the wake of a fatal accident attributed to potholes, bringing the long-standing issue of infrastructure neglect into sharp judicial focus.

Background: A Plea for Constitutional Accountability

The PIL, filed by Advocate Akash S., framed the issue not merely as a matter of civic inconvenience but as a grave constitutional violation. The petitioner argued that the persistent inaction and neglect by the respondents in maintaining these arterial roads amounted to an infringement of citizens' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) (the right to move freely throughout the territory of India) and Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty).

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Akhileshwari, presented a compelling case, highlighting that the right to life encompasses the right to a safe environment, which includes well-maintained and scientifically constructed roads. The plea sought comprehensive judicial intervention, including:

• A declaration that the respondents' failure to maintain the highways violates fundamental rights.
• A directive to compel project concessionaires and contractors to undertake durable and scientific repairs of carriageways, service roads, medians, and other allied infrastructure in line with established engineering standards.
• The establishment of a court-monitored mechanism to oversee road safety, rectify accident-prone "black spots," and implement a transparent public grievance redressal system.
• A framework for fixing accountability on toll contractors, concessionaires, and officials, including provisions for recovering damages and levying penalties for lapses.

This comprehensive set of prayers aimed not just for stop-gap repairs but for a systemic overhaul of the maintenance and accountability framework governing national highways in the region.

The Court's Directive: A Mandate for Action

After examining the petition's arguments, the Division Bench issued a concise but potent directive. Acknowledging the gravity of the averments, which were supported by evidence of the roads' poor condition and recent tragedies, the court stated:

“In view of the averments made in the petitioner, we direct the concerned respondents to examine the prayers of the petitioner and take such steps as it considers warrant.”

By disposing of the petition with this direction, the court has placed the onus squarely on the NHAI and other relevant authorities to act. While the order does not institute a court-monitored committee as requested, it transforms the petitioner's prayers into a formal judicial mandate that the authorities are now bound to consider and act upon. The bench, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H for the Union and AGA Niloufer Akbar for the state, effectively accepted the premise that the conditions described in the petition warrant immediate administrative action.

Legal Analysis: The Right to Safe Roads as a Facet of Article 21

This judgment reinforces a well-established but often-neglected tenet of Indian constitutional law: the right to safe and usable public roads is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly held that the expansive interpretation of Article 21 includes the right to a dignified life, which is impossible without access to safe public infrastructure.

The petition's reliance on Article 19(1)(d) is also noteworthy. The freedom of movement is not merely a theoretical right to travel without restriction but implies the existence of a basic, safe infrastructure that makes such movement practically possible without endangering one's life. A road riddled with potholes and lacking scientific maintenance acts as a direct impediment to this freedom.

The Karnataka High Court's approach in this case—issuing a clear directive while disposing of the petition—reflects a common judicial strategy in PILs concerning administrative duties. It signals trust in the executive to comply with the court's order without necessitating continuous judicial oversight, which can sometimes be seen as overreach into administrative functions. This approach balances judicial activism with the principle of separation of powers.

A Comparative Perspective: Judicial Oversight in Infrastructure PILs

The court's decision not to create a monitoring committee contrasts with approaches seen in other jurisdictions. For instance, in a related matter concerning the Paliyekkara toll plaza on NH-544, the Kerala High Court took a more hands-on approach. Faced with similar complaints of poor road conditions, the Kerala HC initially suspended toll collection and later constituted an Interim Traffic Management Committee to inspect bottlenecks and suggest remedies. Even after lifting the suspension, the bench in Shaji J. Kodankadath v. Union of India explicitly stated, "We are not closing this matter," keeping the case open for continued monitoring.

This comparison highlights two distinct judicial philosophies. The Karnataka High Court's order is a mandate based on trust, compelling the NHAI to fulfill its statutory and constitutional duties. The Kerala High Court's approach reflects a more interventionist stance, where the judiciary maintains active supervision to ensure compliance. The efficacy of the Karnataka HC's order will now depend entirely on the proactiveness and good faith of the NHAI and other respondents. Should they fail to take adequate steps, it remains open for the petitioner or other concerned citizens to approach the court again, potentially through a contempt petition or a fresh PIL.

Conclusion: A Call for Proactive Governance

The Karnataka High Court's order serves as a critical reminder to public authorities that road maintenance is not a discretionary function but a constitutional obligation. For legal practitioners, this case is a valuable precedent for framing infrastructure-related grievances within the robust framework of fundamental rights. It empowers citizens and their counsel to hold government bodies accountable for ensuring that public funds and tolls translate into safe, reliable infrastructure. The focus now shifts to the NHAI, whose actions—or inaction—in the coming weeks will determine whether the court's directive leads to tangible improvements on the ground and prevents further tragedies on Karnataka's coastal highways.