Highways Under Siege | Supreme Court Slams Centre Over Inaction On Encroachments | “Machinery Available Only On Paper” As Road Safety Crisis Deepens
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the Union Government must implement a structured and effective mechanism to eliminate unauthorised occupation of national highways and ensure public safety. The Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to formulate surveillance teams, digital reporting tools, and enforce provisions under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and its associated rules. The Court further mandated that both procedural and technical reforms be put into effect within a defined timeline.
A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner, Gyan Prakash, seeking enforcement of statutory provisions for the safety of highways, primarily invoking the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and the Highway Administration Rules, 2004. The petitioner stated alarming figures from the 2017 report titled "Road Accidents in India," pointing out that 53,181 people died on highways in that year. It was argued that systematic encroachments, lack of monitoring, and non-implementation of the statutory regime contributed significantly to these fatalities.
The Court considered detailed submissions from multiple stakeholders, including the petitioner-in-person, Additional Solicitor General Shri K. M. Nataraj for the Union of India, and Rajiv Pratap Rudy, a Member of Parliament appearing as an intervenor. Amicus Curiae Ms. Swati Ghildiyal was appointed to assist the Court.
On 20th February 2024, the Court noted the creation of Highway Administrations as required under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, but found a lack of effective implementation. The Court recorded that no machinery was in place to conduct regular surveys to detect encroachments and that there was an absence of grievance redressal mechanisms for the public. Judicial notice was taken of widespread encroachments and the resultant safety hazards under Section 31(2).
It was observed that affidavits submitted by the Ministry only suggested superficial compliance. Consequently, the Court directed Highway Administrations to devise a scheme for periodic inspection, set up citizen grievance mechanisms, and implement Section 26 of the Act for removal of encroachments.
On 30th April 2024, a compliance affidavit was submitted by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The Court found it unsatisfactory, especially regarding the removal statistics annexed as Annexure A-5. The Court issued further directives to file detailed affidavits concerning eight states—Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal—on inspections and encroachment removal activities.
The Court stated that actions under Section 26 require collaboration with state police and local administration. Furthermore, the Ministry was directed to address deficiencies in the implementation of the 2019 amendments to the 2004 Rules and file an improved affidavit covering the same.
On 27th August 2024, the Amicus Curiae raised concerns about the inadequacy of inspection teams based on a circular dated 18th March 2024. In response, the Court directed the Ministry to establish dedicated teams for each stretch of national highway and to operationalise a portal where citizens could upload complaints, images, and location details of encroachments.
Additionally, it was directed that toll-free numbers and digital platforms receive wide publicity and function effectively. The Court noted that the portal must allow for public grievance redressal with tracking and appeal options.
“There are very important functions entrusted to the Highway Administrations. One is of prevention of occupation of highway land (Section 24), removal of unauthorised occupation from highway (Section 26), recovery of cost of removal of unauthorized occupation and fine imposed (Section 27), to regulate right of access to highway (Section 28) and regulation of traffic on the highway when situation contemplated by sub-section 2 of Section 31 arises.”
“Unless survey is regularly carried out, the Highway Administrations will have no source of knowing whether there is any unauthorized occupation of highway land.”
“Judicial notice will have to be taken of the fact that in different parts of India, there are unauthorized encroachments on highway land.”
“After reading the affidavits of the Highway Administrations, one gets an impression that the machinery is available only on paper and there is no effective implementation of the provisions of the 2002 Act.”
“We direct the Highways Administrations to come out with a scheme which will provide for regular inspection of the highways, for establishment of grievance redressal mechanism and for taking prompt action on the basis of the complaints.”
“Prima facie, we are not satisfied with the action taken as reflected from the said statistics when it comes to removal of encroachments on the highways as provided in Section 26.”
“The issue of encroachments on Highways has a nexus with road safety.”
“The application permits the complaints to be filed about various aspects, such as poor workmanship, potholes and various other issues.”
“It is unclear whether any complaint regarding unauthorised occupation of Highways was received through the medium of the toll-free number.”
“There is a need to issue exhaustive circulars on this aspect setting out the names and designations of the members of the inspection team, the frequency of inspections, the time intervals of inspections, allocation of highway stretches to the respective inspection teams and timely report of encroachments by the inspection teams.”
“It is necessary to constitute a dedicated surveillance team consisting of the State Police for manning the National Highways. The surveillance teams must constantly carry out patrolling so that there is no unauthorised occupation of highway lands.”
The Court directed the Highway Administration under Section 3(1) of the 2002 Act to file an affidavit detailing implementation step under Rule 3 of the 2004 Rules as amended on 16 September 2019, including documentary evidence. The affidavit is to be submitted within three months from the date of judgment.
The Court ordered that the ‘Rajmargyatra’ mobile application must be publicised widely through all forms of media and signage at toll and food plazas. This direction is to be implemented within three months.
It directed the Highway Administration to submit a detailed account of complaint categories registered via the ‘Rajmargyatra’ app, particularly those relating to unauthorised highway occupation, and the resulting actions. The National Highways Authority of India was also directed to confirm the establishment of a dedicated grievance portal with features for action tracking and appeals.
The Court mandated the issuance of a Standard Operating Procedure outlining the inspection team structures, assigned highway stretches, reporting protocols, and data collection standards.
The Union of India was further directed to constitute surveillance teams comprising state police or other forces to undertake regular patrolling. Compliance for the same was to be reported within three months.
The Court instructed that suggestions provided by the Amicus Curiae on 5 October 2024 be considered in an upcoming Highway Administration meeting and appropriate decisions taken.
Case Title: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 753
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No.1272 of 2019
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
