Supreme Court Upholds Toll Suspension on Poor Roads, Cites Breach of Public Trust

New Delhi – In a landmark judgment with far-reaching implications for India's infrastructure and administrative law landscape, the Supreme Court of India on August 20, 2025, affirmed a Kerala High Court decision preventing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) from collecting tolls on a highway in abysmal condition. The ruling establishes a powerful precedent, cementing the principle that the public's obligation to pay a user fee is conditional upon the authorities providing safe and motorable roads.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the NHAI and a concessionaire, Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd., against the Kerala High Court's August 6 order. That order had suspended toll collection for four weeks at the Paliyekkara Toll Plaza on the heavily trafficked Edapally–Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544.

The apex court's decision in National Highway Authority of India and Anr. vs. O.J. Janeesh and Ors. goes beyond a mere endorsement of the High Court's order. It delivers a scathing critique of the systemic failures within the nation's toll-based highway management system, framing the issue as a fundamental breach of public trust and a violation of citizens' legitimate expectations.

---

The Core Legal Rationale: A Reciprocal Obligation

At the heart of the Supreme Court's reasoning is the concept of a reciprocal relationship between the state and the citizen. The bench unequivocally stated that the statutory right to collect tolls is not absolute; it is intrinsically linked to the corresponding duty to maintain the infrastructure for which the fee is levied.

The Court’s order eloquently captured this principle:

“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.”

This articulation elevates the commuter from a passive payer to an active rights-holder, whose payment for a service entitles them to a minimum standard of that service. By framing the failure to maintain roads as a "breach of the public’s legitimate expectations," the Court has provided a robust legal basis for future challenges against deficient public services.

The controversy stemmed from petitions filed by commuters in the Kerala High Court, who detailed extreme traffic congestion and perilous road conditions that turned a one-hour journey on the Edapally–Mannuthy stretch into an ordeal lasting over 12 hours. The High Court, having issued multiple prior directions to the NHAI with no effect, ultimately exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to suspend toll collection as a last resort.

Arguments at the Bar: Contractual Rights vs. Public Hardship

The hearing at the Supreme Court saw a clash of compelling legal arguments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NHAI, contended that monsoon conditions and ongoing construction complicated maintenance efforts. He proposed a proportionate reduction in tolls as a remedy, citing earlier judgments, rather than a complete suspension.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the concessionaire Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd., argued his client was being unfairly penalised for issues partially caused by third-party contractors. He highlighted significant financial losses of ₹5-6 crores in just ten days and argued that suspending the entire revenue stream was a disproportionate measure that threatened the viability of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. He further contended that the High Court's suggestion to claim losses from the NHAI was not a practical remedy, as it would mire the concessionaire in further litigation.

Countering these claims, Senior Advocate Jayant Muthuraj, for the original petitioners, argued that the NHAI bore the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a motorable road. He described a situation of complete administrative breakdown and blame-shifting between the NHAI, the concessionaire, and other contractors, while the public continued to suffer. He emphasized that the High Court's intervention was a necessary step to compel accountability after all other avenues had failed.

The Court’s Scathing Observations on Systemic Flaws

The bench was unmoved by the NHAI's and the concessionaire's arguments, focusing instead on the ground reality faced by citizens. The judges made it personal, noting that they themselves had experienced the severe traffic snarls on the route in question.

In a moment of telling judicial candor, CJI Gavai remarked:

“Why should a person pay ₹150 if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other end?”

Justice Chandran further dismantled the "proportionate reduction" argument by pointing out its absurdity in the context of a 12-hour traffic jam, wryly suggesting the NHAI should perhaps compensate commuters for their lost time.

The final order went further, lamenting the dual burden on citizens who pay both motor vehicle tax and tolls, only to receive substandard services. The Court criticized the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model, where contractors often "recover far more than they spend," and pointed to toll booths as sites of "harassment and inconvenience." The bench concluded with a powerful statement that citizens should not be forced to pay tolls for "navigating gutters and potholes, symbols of inefficiency."

---

Broader Implications for Administrative and Infrastructure Law

This judgment is poised to have a transformative impact on infrastructure projects and the enforcement of public duties across India.

1. Empowering Citizen Action: The ruling provides clear legal precedent for citizens and public interest groups to challenge toll collection on any highway that is not properly maintained. It effectively weaponizes the concept of service deficiency in the context of public infrastructure.

2. Increased Accountability for NHAI and Concessionaires: The decision sends an unambiguous message that revenue collection is conditional on performance. Concessionaires can no longer cite contractual rights as a shield against public accountability for poor maintenance. This may force a renegotiation of terms in future PPP and BOT agreements to include stricter service-level standards and non-performance penalties.

3. Strengthening Judicial Review: The Supreme Court’s robust backing of the High Court's use of Article 226 reinforces the judiciary's role as a watchdog against administrative apathy. It confirms that courts can and will intervene to suspend revenue-generating activities of the state when public interest is severely compromised.

4. A Shift from ‘Right to Toll’ to ‘Duty to Serve’: The legal narrative is subtly shifted from the state's right to impose a fee to the citizen's right to receive a service. This rights-based framework could be extended to other areas where user fees are charged for public services, such as water supply, electricity, and sanitation.

While the Court clarified that the suspension is not indefinite and can be lifted once the road is repaired, the onus is now squarely on the NHAI and its partners to act. The suggestion that the concessionaire seek relief from the NHAI or an extension of its operational period protects the financial contract to an extent, but it firmly insulates the public from being party to their internal disputes. In essence, the Court has ruled that the citizen’s right to a safe road trumps the commercial arrangements between the state and its private partners.