Orissa High Court PIL Challenges Toll on Hazardous Highway - 2026-01-10

Orissa High Court PIL Challenges Toll on Hazardous Highway

In a significant public interest move, the Orissa High Court has received a petition from Advocate Akash Sharma seeking to suspend toll collection at the Jharpokharia Toll Plaza on National Highway 49 (NH-49). The PIL, titled Akash Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. , contends that levying fees on a severely degraded and incomplete stretch—particularly the notorious Dwarsuni Ghat section—constitutes an unlawful exaction, endangering lives and infringing on fundamental rights. With the highway riddled with potholes, craters, and construction obstacles, and not slated for completion until November 22, 2027, Sharma argues that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is imposing an arbitrary financial burden on users who are essentially paying for a "death trap." This case highlights escalating tensions between infrastructure development promises and public safety, potentially setting a benchmark for accountability in India's toll regime.

The Hazardous Stretch: Background on NH-49 and Dwarsuni Ghat

National Highway 49, a vital artery connecting coastal Odisha to inland regions, has long been plagued by maintenance woes, but the Dwarsuni Ghat section stands out as a particularly perilous segment. Spanning a challenging ghat terrain, this stretch is described in media reports and the petition as a "collapsed highway," fraught with unrepaired damages, deep potholes, and craters that render it neither safe nor motorable. Ongoing construction work further obstructs traffic, creating bottlenecks and heightening accident risks for commuters, including ambulances, school buses, and commercial vehicles.

The petition underscores the human cost with stark statistics: over 500 accidents and more than 100 fatalities have occurred on this segment in recent years alone. These figures paint a grim picture of a road that has become synonymous with tragedy, isolating nearby villages by disrupting public transport services. Several operators have suspended or curtailed routes, exacerbating economic hardships for local communities reliant on the highway for livelihoods. Frequent media coverage has amplified calls for urgent restoration, labeling the ghat a "death trap" and pressuring authorities for action.

Despite these admissions of incompleteness, NHAI continues toll operations at Jharpokharia Plaza, which falls within the plaza's influence zone. The authority justifies this by claiming the toll covers a "completed section," but the petition counters that users cannot be segregated from the unsafe ghat while traversing the tolled corridor. This backdrop of neglect forms the crux of Sharma's challenge, framing toll collection not as a legitimate charge but as an exploitative practice amid glaring infrastructural failures.

Core Arguments in the PIL

Advocate Akash Sharma's petition meticulously lays out the grievances, demanding court directions to halt tolls until the highway is fully safe and operational. Central to the arguments is the assertion that road users are being coerced into payments despite the absence of a functional roadway. The document vividly details the ghat's perils, stating verbatim:

"The Dwarsuni Ghat stretch is neither safe nor motorable. The highway is damaged, hazardous, unrepaired, full of potholes, craters, obstructed by ongoing construction, and admittedly incomplete until 22.11.2027. Therefore, the continued levy of toll/user fee at Jharpokharia Plaza amounts to unlawful exaction."

This quote encapsulates the petition's factual foundation, emphasizing how the road's condition violates the essence of tolling as a service-based fee. Sharma further alleges complicity by NHAI and toll operators, calling for action against contractors for "illegally" collecting fees on an unfinished project. The plea also highlights socio-economic ripple effects, such as reduced transport access leading to village isolation and livelihood disruptions.

In a poignant critique of the financial imposition, the petition declares:

“The imposition of financial burden upon citizens who are compelled to risk their lives on a dilapidated highway is manifestly arbitrary and shocks the conscience.”

This language invokes principles of fairness and equity, positioning the case as a broader indictment of governance lapses in public infrastructure.

Constitutional and Legal Foundations

At its heart, the PIL invokes Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Sharma argues that safe travel is an integral facet of this right, and forcing citizens to navigate hazardous roads while paying tolls undermines their dignity and security. Courts have progressively expanded Article 21 to encompass environmental protections, access to clean water, and now, implicitly, road safety—precedents that bolster this claim. For instance, Supreme Court rulings have linked poor infrastructure to state negligence, holding authorities accountable for endangering lives.

The petition also dissects the nature of tolls under the National Highways Act, 1956, and the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. It asserts:

“Toll is not a tax; it is a user fee. In the absence of a motorable road, the legal basis for levying the fee collapses entirely.”

This draws on the quid pro quo principle: users pay for enhanced facilities like smooth roads and maintenance, not for substandard conditions. Without delivering on this bargain, the fee becomes arbitrary, potentially violating Article 14's equality clause by imposing unequal burdens. Administrative law experts may see parallels to doctrines like legitimate expectation, where NHAI's promises of timely completion create enforceable obligations.

Related Supreme Court interventions, such as directives to NHAI for combating land encroachments through police patrols and a national helpline for complaints, underscore judicial impatience with highway mismanagement. The apex court's criticism of NHAI over appeal delays further contextualizes this PIL as part of a pattern, where lower courts are urged to introspect and enforce stricter oversight.

Broader Implications for Toll Regimes

This litigation arrives at a pivotal moment for India's highway toll system, which generates billions annually but faces mounting scrutiny for inefficiencies. NHAI, as the nodal agency, oversees over 1,500 toll plazas, but delays in projects like the NH-49 widening—initially targeted for earlier completion—erode public trust. The petition's success could mandate toll suspensions or reductions during construction phases, compelling authorities to revise concession agreements with private operators.

Legally, it challenges the compartmentalization of "completed" versus "incomplete" sections in toll jurisdictions, arguing for holistic assessments of safety across entire corridors. If the Orissa High Court rules in favor, it might inspire similar PILs nationwide, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, where pothole-related accidents claim thousands of lives yearly. Conversely, a dismissal could reinforce NHAI's discretion, though at the cost of public backlash.

The case also intersects with environmental law, as ghat sections often involve ecological sensitivities that delay works. Integrating these angles could broaden the discourse, urging sustainable infrastructure models.

Impacts on Stakeholders and Legal Practice

For legal professionals, this PIL exemplifies the evolving role of public interest litigation in addressing systemic failures. Constitutional lawyers may leverage it to expand Article 21's ambit, filing amicus briefs or parallel suits for accident victims seeking compensation under tort law. Administrative law practitioners could advise NHAI on compliance, drafting safer concession terms to mitigate future challenges.

Stakeholders like toll operators face heightened liability risks, potentially leading to insurance reforms or stricter audits. Communities gain empowerment, with the petition's accident data serving as ammunition for community-led advocacy. On a macro level, it pressures the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to accelerate projects, aligning with the government's Bharatmala initiative goals.

In practice, this could spur a wave of infrastructure-related class actions, where firms specialize in quantifying damages from delayed completions. Judges, too, may adopt proactive stances, ordering site inspections or expert reports—tools already used in environmental PILs—to verify claims.

Conclusion

The Akash Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. PIL stands as a clarion call against the paradox of paying for peril on India's national highways. By intertwining road safety with constitutional imperatives, it not only seeks immediate relief for NH-49 users but also advocates for a toll system rooted in accountability and equity. As the Orissa High Court deliberates, the outcome could redefine the user fee paradigm, ensuring that infrastructure development serves the public good rather than extracting undue costs. For legal minds, it's a reminder that the right to life extends to every pothole-dodging journey, urging vigilant enforcement against institutional inertia.