Supreme Court news: Flagging data that national highways constitute only about 2 per cent of India’s total road length but account for nearly 30 per cent of all road fatalities, the Supreme Court said that a high-speed roadway “must not become a corridor of peril” due to administrative lapses or infrastructural gaps, stressing that the right to life includes a safe commuting environment.

A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar was hearing a suo motu writ petition arising out of two fatal accidents in November 2025 in Rajasthan’s Phalodi and Telangana’s Rangareddy districts, which together claimed 34 lives, and examined systemic lapses in highway management and enforcement.

“A road, particularly a high-speed Expressway, must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps. The loss of even a single life to avoidable hazards like illegal parking or blackspots etc., represents a failure of the State’s protective umbrella,’ the court said on April 13.

Acting on joint suggestions from the solicitor general and the amicus curiae, the Supreme Court issued a detailed set of time-bound directions.

No heavy or commercial vehicle shall park/stop on any national highway carriageway or paved shoulder except at a designated bay, lay-bye or wayside amenity. Enforcement to be through ATMS real-time alerts, GPS-timestamped photographic evidence and integrated e-challan generation, with SOPs and compliance within 60 days, said the  Supreme Court.

Highway authorities shall, within 30 days, file a consolidated report on inspection teams, encroachments and compliance status, fully operationalise the Rajmargyatra complaint module, helpline 1033, and conduct drone-based surveys with periodic reporting.

No construction or operation of any new dhaba, eatery or commercial structure within the Right of Way, all unauthorised structures to be removed within 60 days as per law and SOP, ordered the  Supreme Court.

No licence, NOC or trade approval shall be granted or renewed within highway safety zones without prior clearance; existing licences to be reviewed within 30 days, said the  Supreme Court.

Each district to constitute a task force within stipulated time, comprising administration, police and highway authorities, joint responsibility for enforcement, regular meetings, and land-use restrictions near highways to be notified, ordered the  Supreme Court.

Dedicated surveillance teams to be set up within 30 days for regular highway patrolling, supported by vehicle tracking systems and continuous monitoring.

Full activation of Advanced Traffic Management Systems across highways, including cameras, speed detectors, message boards and emergency call boxes, with compliance affidavit within 60 days.

Deployment of ambulances and recovery cranes at intervals not exceeding 75 km to ensure timely emergency response, in line with Article 21 obligations.

Ensure construction of truck lay-bys at regular intervals and operationalisation of wayside amenities with basic facilities like rest areas, food, washrooms and signage.

Authorities may provide additional lay-bys wherever necessary to allow drivers adequate rest.

Identify and publish accident blackspots within 45 days, install lighting, speed cameras and warning systems within prescribed timelines.

Set up an inter-state coordination mechanism to standardise enforcement protocols, surveillance and penalties across states.

All agencies to ensure compliance within timelines and submit consolidated reports before the court within 75 days.

These directions, issued under the court’s constitutional powers, form a structured, time-bound framework for improving highway safety nationwide.

TheSupreme Court directed all implementing agencies, including NHAI and state authorities, to submit compliance reports within 75 days. 

Copies of the order have been circulated to chief secretaries and police chiefs across states and union territories to ensure nationwide implementation.

With the matter scheduled for further hearing after two months, the Supreme Court’s intervention signals a strong push towards systemic reform in highway safety, placing responsibility squarely on authorities to prevent avoidable tragedies on India’s roads.

On March 12, nearly four decades after it intervened, the Supreme Court closed the case that has often been held up as an exemplar of its interventionist, public-spirited jurisdiction. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant disposed of the petition to reduce, what the court described as, “massive pendency” and to modernise the legal approach to air quality.

In the choking haze of a Delhi winter morning, in 1991, the Supreme Court, in a ruling, presented several apocalyptic scenarios — from the polluting effects of the Gulf War, what-if questions around the USSR carrying out a nuclear test, and memories of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy closer home — to underline that the country ought to get serious about the environment.

“Law alone… cannot help in restoring a balance in the biospheric disturbance. Nor can funds help effectively. The situation requires perception and imaginative planning. It also requires sustained effort and result-oriented strategic action,” the ruling by a three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranganath Misra said. The SC mooted the idea of setting up a high-powered committee to assess the situation and the petition was “kept pending for monitoring”.

This short seven-page ruling, where the court seemed to be beseeching rather than passing directives, was to change the course of the national Capital and set a benchmark for environmental jurisprudence in the country. The order came in a plea filed in December 1985 in the landmark M C Mehta v Union of India.