The Supreme Court has strongly directed that no heavy or commercial vehicle shall park or stop on any National Highway carriageway or paved shoulder except at a designated bay, lay-bye, or Wayside Amenity, with enforcement through ATMS real-time alerts to State Police, GPS-timestamped photographic evidence, and integrated e-Challan generation. The Court asserted that these directions were required to be complied with by officials and personnel of NHAI, State Police and State Transport Department, and the District Magistrates of the concerned districts were directed to set up a standard operating procedure for periodical inspections and patrolling within 60 days from the date of the order.
Further, the Highway Administration, NHAI, NHIDCL, and State PWDs were directed, within 30 days, to file before the Court a consolidated report on the composition and schedule of dedicated inspection teams for each highway stretch, state-wise encroachments identified, notices issued under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and structures demolished, and the status of compliance with the directions issued in Gyan Prakash v. Union of India [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1189]. The NHAI was also directed to confirm full operationalisation of the Rajmargyatra encroachment complaint module, activation of toll-free number 1033 for encroachment complaints, dissemination of both across highway signage, toll plazas and media, and to conduct drone-based aerial surveys at least twice annually with six-monthly reports to be filed before the Court.
The Bench prohibited, with immediate effect, the construction or operation of any new dhaba, eatery, or commercial structure within the Right of Way of any National Highway, and directed District Magistrates to enforce demolition or removal of all new or existing unauthorised structures within 60 days in terms of the CNH Act procedure and SOP dated August 7, 2025. It further directed that no department, authority, or local body shall grant or renew any licence, NOC, or trade approval for any site within Highway safety zones without prior NHAI/PWD clearance, and that all such existing licences for such sites shall be reviewed within 30 days.
The Bench directed constitution within 30 days of dedicated Highway Surveillance Teams of State Police and Transport Department personnel for regular National Highway patrolling, supplementing NHAI’s 24×7 route patrolling vehicles at intervals not exceeding 50 km, and mandated that all such vehicles be equipped with Vehicle Tracking Devices. NHAI was directed to operationalise its ATMS comprising TMCC cameras, VSDS speed detectors, VIDS cameras, Variable Message Signboards, and Emergency Call Boxes across all 4/6-lane highways and expressways in terms of the Policy Circular dated October 10, 2023, file an affidavit within 60 days certifying operational status of each component, and make any non-operational units functional within 60 days.
Additionally, the Bench observed that NHAI/MoRTH may consider providing more or extra truck lay-bye facilities wherever possible on the stretch of National Highway so that drivers of heavy transport vehicles continuously being driven could be provided resting facilities. MoRTH and NHAI were therefore directed to identify accident blackspots and critical areas and publish a comprehensive list of accident blackspots on National Highways within 45 days. MoRTH was also directed, within 60 days, to place before the Court a report on the constitution of an Inter-State Highway Safety Coordination Committee for standardising enforcement protocols including uniform driving-hour limits, surveillance standards, parking enforcement, and penalty regimes across State boundaries.
Lastly, the Bench directed that all implementing agencies, namely NHAI, NHIDCL, State PWD and BRO, shall be jointly and severally responsible for compliance within their respective jurisdictions, and that MoRTH, upon securing the consolidated district-wise and agency-wise compliance report, shall file the same in tabular form before the Court within 75 days from the date of uploading of the order.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar recorded that National Highways constitute approximately 2% of India’s total road length but account for nearly 30% of all road fatalities. It observed that a road, particularly a high-speed Expressway, must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps, and that the loss of even a single life to avoidable hazards like illegal parking or blackspots represents a failure of the State’s protective umbrella.
The Bench observed that the “Right to Life” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely a guarantee against the unlawful taking of life, but a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued. Recognizing the safety of the commuter as an integral facet of the right to live with dignity and a constitutional obligation under Article 21, the Court held it necessary to address the systematic root causes by issuing interim directions in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and reiterated that no pecuniary or administrative constraint can outweigh the sanctity of human life.
The Bench also made it clear that the strict timelines provided in the order reflected the urgency of this constitutional obligation. It directed coordination at the highest administrative levels by ordering that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary/Administrator and Director General of Police of all States and Union Territories, State Legal Services Authorities, and NHIDCL, with liberty to parties to approach the Court in case of compliance issues. It further directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Road Safety Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Abhay Sapre, and directed MoRTH to place before the Court the Committee’s recommendations insofar as they pertain to the causes of highway accidents addressed in the matter within 75 days.
Briefly, following the tragic loss of 34 lives in successive road accidents on November 2 and 3, 2025 in district Phalodi, Rajasthan and district Rangareddy, Telangana, the Supreme Court, by order dated November 10, 2025, took suo motu cognizance of the systemic negligence and catastrophic infrastructure failures that led to these avoidable casualties. The Court treated such lapses as a grave infringement on the right to safe passage and a dereliction of statutory duty by authorities, particularly noting that illegal encroachments were addressed only in the aftermath of the tragedies, and accordingly issued notice to State and National authorities seeking a comprehensive report on these administrative failures and the resulting threat to public safety.
Thereafter, various suggestions and recommendations were made by the Amicus Curiae on February 15, 2026. On February 16, 2026, the Solicitor General and the Amicus Curiae were directed to sit together and identify the areas in which further deliberations were required, the areas of improvement, and the areas of immediate improvement for which directions were necessitated. Pursuant thereto, on March 16, 2026, NHAI placed its comments on record, and on April 8, 2026, NHAI filed an additional affidavit in response to the interim directions proposed to be issued in the proceedings.
At the request of the Court, the Solicitor General and the Amicus Curiae jointly tendered suggestions indicating the nature of interim directions that could be considered during the pendency of the proceedings. Upon considering the jointly made suggestions and recommendations, the Court found them to be practical in nature and necessary to be issued, and accordingly proceeded to issue interim directions.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Atmaram NS Nadkarni (Amicus Curiae), AOR Jai Anant Dehadrai, along with Advocates Deepti Arya, Himanshi Nagpal, Prashanth Dixit, Arzu Paul, Srutee Priyadarshini, and Bhavya Jain, By Courts Motion
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior AAG Alok Sangwan, AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma and Bishwajit Dubey, Senior Advocate Pradeep Kumar Rai, AORs Gunjan Sinha Jain, Karan Sharma, Samar Vijay Singh, Nidhi Jaswal, Deepanwita Priyanka, Devina Sehgal, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Vivek Sharma, M/S R And R Law Associates, Pranav Sachdeva, along with Advocates Digvijay Dam, Shyam Agarwal, Atmaya, Mohit Siwach, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma,Gaj Singh, Rajat Sangwan, Divya Sharma, Harsh Mehla, Rajat Sinha Roy, Anupam Saxena, Ashvini Kumar Mishra, Shalini Singh, Satyalipsu Ray, Swati Ghildiyal, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Vinayak Sharma, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Modoyia Kayina, Farhat Naim, Vinay Kumar Rai, Rajshree Rai, Khushboo Singhal, P Rohit Ram, Sanyam Jain, and Mishra Divya Santosh, for the Respondents
