State Liable for Unsafe Roads; SC Elevates Road Safety to Fundamental Right
Moneylife Digital Team 01 August 2025
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that the right to safe, well-maintained and motorable roads is an essential component of the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Declaring it a constitutional obligation of the State, the SC said that citizens cannot be deprived of safe public infrastructure, especially roads that are vital for mobility, dignity and economic access.
 
A bench comprising justice JB Pardiwala and justice R Mahadevan observed that the State's responsibility to build and maintain roads cannot be evaded or delegated in ways that compromise the public’s right to safety. “Since the right to access any part of the country, with certain exceptions and restrictions under certain circumstances, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) and the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is recognised under Article 21, it is the responsibility of the State to develop and maintain roads under its control,” the bench stated.
 
The judgement came in a civil appeal filed by Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt Ltd against the Madhya Pradesh (MP) High Court (HC)’s order which had upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of the MP arbitration tribunal (MPAT) over a dispute related to a road construction concession. The case involved a build, operate and transfer (BOT) toll plus annuity project executed by UPP Tollways on a 43.775km stretch of road in Madhya Pradesh. The SC not only examined jurisdictional conflicts but also firmly established the constitutional imperative of maintaining road safety.
 
The case emerged from delays and disputes in project execution, design approval, and cost escalations that prompted UPP Tollways to invoke a private arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the SC dismissed the viability of private arbitration in this context, affirming that disputes relating to works contracts involving the State must be exclusively adjudicated by the MPAT as per the 1983 Act.
 
Criticising UPP Tollways’ conduct, the SC said the attempt to withdraw proceedings from the tribunal and later revive the same claims through private arbitration amounted to forum shopping. It ruled that such parallel legal processes were impermissible and tainted with mala fides. Furthermore, it noted that the claims, originating between 2013 and 2015, were time-barred under the relevant statutes, including the Limitation Act.
 
Despite these findings, the SC granted limited relief. In the interest of justice and, upon the solicitor general's suggestion, it allowed UPP Tollways to seek revival of the earlier withdrawn Reference Petition before the MPAT. UPP Tollways has been directed to move the tribunal within two weeks of the judgement and the tribunal has been instructed to decide on the matter within a further two weeks. If revived, the reference should be concluded within four months.
 
This judgement reinforces the role of the judiciary in ensuring public accountability, especially in infrastructure projects executed via public-private partnerships. It underscores that contractual freedoms cannot override constitutional mandates or statutory dispute resolution mechanisms—particularly when public interest is at stake.
Comments
kokkodil1
8 months ago
Bravo! But our ‘Servants’ aka Politicians and Babus are beyond the law or so they feel. The SC is our only hope.
deepak.narain
8 months ago
It is a salutary judgement. The loss/harm caused to public due to bad roads should be compensated by the State, through an appropriate insurance scheme if necessary, within 3 months of the accident.
vs.iyer316
8 months ago
I hold Mr. Nitin Gadkari for the negligence. Raod construction starts when there are few months for monsoon. These are the tactics of any Government and the parties benefitted are politicians and contract company. There should be heavy penalty in the contract company if the roads are not maintained by the contract company. The joke is that our politicians are not questioned and not brought before the court. The country is full of corruption and the politicians, builders etc amassed wealth to the extent that our country's entire loan can be paid.
parimalshah1
9 months ago
All this will look good on paper. If one really sues the government or municipality how many years and how much expense will be incurred is anybody's guess. Common citizens know how the judiciary works.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback