Poor Roads a "Virtual Crime": Kerala High Court Elevates Right to Travel, Links to Article 21

Kochi, Kerala – In a significant judicial intervention addressing the perilous state of public roads, the Kerala High Court has declared that the "right to travel" is being virtually elevated to the status of a fundamental right, inextricably linked to the right to safety under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Devan Ramachandran, hearing a long-standing public interest litigation, characterized the persistent failure to repair dangerous roads as a "virtual crime," signaling a new era of stringent accountability for government agencies and their officials.

The Court's trenchant observations came during the hearing of C P Ajithkumar v State of Kerala , a case from 2008 that has become a focal point for judicial scrutiny of civic infrastructure negligence. While the Public Works Department (PWD) and other local bodies like the Corporation of Cochin submitted that restoration works had commenced across the state, the Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the pace and transparency of the process, demanding concrete action over mere assurances.

This landmark pronouncement not only reinforces the judiciary's role as a guardian of citizens' rights but also sets a powerful precedent for holding the executive accountable for ensuring public safety through well-maintained infrastructure.

The Constitutional Elevation of a Basic Right

At the heart of the Court's stance is a profound constitutional interpretation. Justice Ramachandran forcefully articulated the evolving status of the right to travel, moving it beyond a mere constitutional convenience to a near-fundamental entitlement.

"This Court has been emphasising in every order that has been issued that right to travel is a constitutional right but is now being elevated, virtually, to a fundamental right," the judge observed.

Crucially, the Court tethered this right to the inviolable Right to Life and Personal Liberty enshrined in Article 21. "Right to safety is on a much higher pedestal because it falls within the compass of Article 21," the order stated. This linkage is pivotal, as it reframes the issue of poor roads from an administrative lapse to a direct violation of a citizen's fundamental right to life, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted to mean a life of dignity, not mere animal existence.

By making this connection, the Kerala High Court asserts that the state's obligation is not just to provide roads, but to provide safe roads. The failure to do so is not merely an inconvenience; it is an endangerment of life, making governmental inaction a matter of grave constitutional concern.

"Procrastination Becomes a Virtual Crime"

The Court's language was unsparing in its critique of the authorities' delay and inaction. The observation that "procrastination in restoring it becomes a virtual crime" marks a significant rhetorical and legal escalation. This statement implies that the persistent and negligent failure to perform a statutory duty, when it leads to public harm and endangers lives, transcends administrative failure and approaches criminal culpability.

This perspective challenges the culture of impunity that can sometimes pervade public works departments, where delays are often normalized. The Court's framing suggests that officials cannot hide behind bureaucratic inertia when fundamental rights are at stake. The PWD had stated that action was taken against responsible engineers, but its failure to produce a corresponding report before the bench was met with judicial skepticism. The amicus curiae further bolstered the Court's concerns, noting that observed road improvements were merely "peripheral changes due to stoppage of rains," rather than the result of substantive, lasting repairs.

Imposing Personal Accountability on Engineers

In a move designed to cut through bureaucratic red tape and ensure direct accountability, Justice Ramachandran issued a stern and unambiguous directive. The Court made it clear that its patience had worn thin and that it would no longer accept vague assurances from government pleaders.

"I propose to clarify that should there be any road which remains unattended by the next posting date, the engineer in charge of the same shall be present before this Court," the judge declared.

This order of personal appearance is a powerful tool of judicial enforcement. It pierces the corporate veil of government departments and places the responsibility squarely on the individual officials tasked with maintaining specific stretches of road. For legal practitioners, this signifies a shift towards demanding individual liability in cases of public negligence. It forces the administration to identify who is responsible and ensures that person must answer directly to the judiciary, a measure that is likely to expedite repair work more effectively than departmental memos.

Legal and Systemic Implications

The Kerala High Court's ruling in C P Ajithkumar v State of Kerala has far-reaching implications for constitutional law, administrative law, and public interest litigation across India.

1. Broadening the Ambit of Article 21: This case continues the expansive judicial interpretation of Article 21. Just as the right to a clean environment, the right to speedy trial, and the right to privacy have been read into the right to life, the right to safe travel is now being firmly established within its protective umbrella. This provides a robust legal basis for citizens and advocates to file writ petitions against government bodies for infrastructure failures.

2. A Precedent for Public Accountability: The judgment serves as a powerful precedent for courts nationwide to take a more proactive and stringent role in overseeing the functions of the executive branch, particularly in areas concerning public welfare and safety. The concept of negligence as a "virtual crime" and the imposition of personal accountability on officials can be cited in similar cases involving water supply, sanitation, public transport, and other essential services.

3. Strengthening Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The ongoing monitoring in this 14-year-old case demonstrates the utility of PIL as a tool for sustained judicial engagement to remedy systemic administrative failures. It highlights how the judiciary can act as a forum for continuous dialogue and pressure, ensuring that court orders translate into tangible action on the ground.

As government bodies, including the PWD, the Corporation of Cochin, and the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA), race to complete roadworks and prepare detailed reports for the next hearing, the message from the Kerala High Court is unequivocal: the safety of citizens on public roads is a non-negotiable fundamental right, and those responsible for ensuring it will be held to the highest standard of accountability.