Supreme Court on Tolling and Road Safety: Restructuring the Right to Use Roads

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India on 18 August 2025 handed down a judgment that can potentially transform Indian citizens' experience of their roads. The National Highways Authority of India and Anr. v. O.J. Janeesh and Ors. case was triggered by the systemic mismanagement of the Ernakulam–Mannuthy section of National Highway 544 in Kerala. Constructed on a Build Operate Transfer contract, this section had become the byword for traffic jams, hazardous black spots, and ongoing congestion due to unfinished work and uncontrolled diversions. The Kerala High Court, despondent after years of waiting for action by the authorities, suspended toll payment for four weeks and directed emergency repairs.

The Supreme Court, confronted by a challenge from the NHAI and the private concessionaire, upheld the High Court's rationale. In so doing, it reasserted a simple yet strong truth: toll collection is not an unfettered prerogative of concessionaires, but a mutually bargained arrangement. Citizens pay tolls with the reasonable expectation of safe and free passage. If that expectation is thwarted, toll collection is no longer justified.
The ruling poses questions that extend far beyond Kerala. It puts into focus constitutional protection from hazardous travel, the responsibility of concessionaires and state agencies, the balance between public good and private gain, and the manner in which India must design its highways according to international best practices.

The Background of the Dispute

The NH-544 stretch at Ernakulam Mannuthy is one of Kerala's most congested highways, linking business centers and serving thousands of commuters daily. The project was executed on a BOT model under which the private concessionaire funded the construction with an assurance of recovering the costs and profits through tolls over a concession period. On paper, the model permits private investment to spur the development of infrastructure while saving the public exchequer.

On the ground, the model has encountered difficulties in India. Here, local communities resisted diversions, widening of roads, and land purchase. Various unplanned road cuts and access points were permitted, resulting in black spots on the road. Underpass and flyover structures at Amballur, Perambra, Muringur, and Chirangara were unfinished. Monsoon rainfall also destroyed the service roads, leaving commuters to use narrow, crowded lanes.

The Kerala High Court kept issuing orders to the authorities to finish the outstanding works, but execution was tardy. The people continued to pay tolls and spend up to several hours in traffic jams, suffering severe safety risks. Frustrated as they were, the High Court finally suspended the collection of tolls for four weeks in July 2025 and ordered immediate actions to be taken to sort out the black spots. Such an order was challenged in the Supreme Court, where both NHAI and the concessionaire had claimed that suspension of tolls was eroding contractual rights and would deter private funding in infrastructure.

The Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that constitutional rights might be overruled by contractual obligations. It based its argument on the premise that tolls constitute user fees, not general taxation. User fees, unlike taxes, are levied against a specific benefit. In this instance, the benefit is the privilege of traversing a safe, working, and efficient highway. If the benefit is not delivered, then the moral and legal foundation of the toll is eroded.

In paragraph 11 of its judgment, the Court mentioned that the legislative scheme applicable to toll collection under the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules envisions a mutual obligation. Duty of citizens to pay tolls is not distinguishable from duty of authorities to keep the road in a condition fit for use. The Court said that neglecting to facilitate free and safe passage is a dereliction of duty.

The Court also weighed the economic and environmental costs of neglect. It observed that extended traffic congestion not only wastes time for commuters but also creates wastage of fuel, increased emissions, and unnecessary stress. The constitutional protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 encompasses a right to travel in safety and health conditions that are not hazardous to safety and health. The Court therefore placed the issue within the larger context of constitutional rights, as distinct from narrow contractual interpretation.

Significantly, the Court affirmed the suspension of tolls but did not rule out the concessionaires from seeking redress for financial damages under their contracts. It clarified, however, that remedies under such contracts could not be invoked to continue billing citizens for services not delivered.

The Court's stance upholds principles of proportionality and legitimate expectation. Citizens who pay tolls are entitled to a legitimate expectation that the road will be convenient and safe. When the expectation is breached, the judiciary can step in to restore balance.

Driving Rules and Highway Safety in India

The case also needs to be placed within the larger crisis of safety on highways in India. The Motor Vehicles Act, prescribes the legal framework for the use of roads, including licensing, registration, penalties, and speed limits. Yet, India still has one of the world's highest rates of road accidents. Official statistics put more than 150,000 people killed on the country's roads every year, many of them on highways.

One of the major contributors is the number of accident-prone black spots. The Indian Roads Congress has issued guidelines for highway design specifying proper signing, grade separation at intersections, and adequate pedestrian facilities. However, the enforcement continues to be lax. Highways are designed with little human safety concern, where speed and capacity are the only concerns.

Yet another chronic issue is the existence of unauthorized commercial outlets along highways. Dhabas, kiosks, fuel stations, and shops frequently develop ad hoc entry points enabling autos to come in or move out of the highway abruptly. This is counter to the system of controlled access, which is critical for high-speed corridors. The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act gives NHAI powers to control and demolish unauthorized structures, but weak enforcement has left many stretches exposed.

The judgment of the Supreme Court points to these failures indirectly. Unless toll collection is made legitimate, the authorities will have to ensure rigorous compliance with rules of safety. This means not just the finishing of construction but also the management of driving habits and roadside facilities.

Comparative Jurisdictions

Internationally, various jurisdictions have developed models of highway stewardship that connect tolling with accountability. In the United States, the situation is no different, with toll roads being widespread in states like Florida and Texas. In these places, concession contracts are significantly performance-based, with unambiguous service level standards. Tolls can be lowered or contracts terminated by agencies if roads turn out to be poorly managed. Transparency and citizen monitoring are at the core of the model.

In the United Kingdom, tolling is unusual. The policy has been that highways are a public good paid for by general taxation. Where there are tolls, as on the privately run M6 Toll, they are only acceptable if they offer quicker and safer routes. When those advantages cease to exist, public tolerance of tolls soon collapses.

The Eurovignette Directive, establishes the principle that user charges shall be proportionate, infrastructure-quality-linked, and sensitive to environmental costs. Germany has led in electronic tolling for trucks, with revenues transparently assigned to road upkeep and environmental mitigation.

Singapore boasts the most advanced model. Its Electronic Road Pricing system dynamically charges depending on levels of congestion. Drivers pay more in peak hours, but in exchange have smooth, predictable rides. Notably, expressways are free from roadside commercial encroachments entirely. Rigorous zoning means no unauthorized buildings intrude on safety.

Lessons are also drawn from other nations. Japanese expressways are tolled but kept to very high standards of maintenance, with concessionaires on strict liability for safety infractions. In South Africa, tolling has induced public protests when left unaccompanied by delivery of services, demonstrating that legitimacy depends on citizen opinion. Australia has a combination of public and private toll roads, where operators must follow strict safety and service standards, including clearly communicating travel times.

Thus, the SC's requirement to connect tolls with service delivery brings India in line with these international standards.

Commercial Establishments on Highways

The ruling also opens up roadside outlets for renewed debate. In India, the highway economy cannot be separated from the chain of dhabas, restaurants, and fuel pumps catering to truck drivers and other road travelers. These outlets do tend to offer a resting place for the travellers and refreshments for them but, if left unregulated, can turn into sources of hazard.

Illicit access points established for ease of commerce erode controlled access and generate sudden disagreements between fast and slow-moving traffic. ill-planned establishments also result in pedestrian movement across highways, significantly elevating accident risks.

International experience shows us that it is possible to provide amenities safely if it is scientifically designed. Zoning regulation in the United States and the European Union demands that establishments must be at planned places with safe entry and exit ramps. Singapore prohibits establishments completely on expressways and has rest areas only at well-planned intervals.

For India, the lesson is not to get rid of roadside trade but to control it. The truckers need safe resting places, and the long-distance travelers need facilities. These, however, need to be built into highway planning, not left to haphazard intrusions.

Environmental and Social Dimensions

The Court's emphasis on congestion as an environmental issue is of much importance. Traffic congestion consumes fuel, increases emissions, and exposes the general population to unnecessary polluted gases. Moreover, traffic jams on Indian roads waste millions of liters of fuel annually which further contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Energy and Resources Institute. The WHO has repeatedly claimed that air pollution is a leading cause of premature death in India.

The Court has linked tolling to congestion and safety, effectively tying road management to environmental protection. This aligns with Article 48A of the Constitution, which requires the State to protect and enhance the environment. Furthermore, it meets India's commitments under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions intensity.

Towards Humane and Accountable Road Governance

The verdict can be viewed as a chance to rethink highway management in India. Tolling should be accompanied by independent audits of road condition, automatically suspended when there is failure to meet standards. BOT concessions need to be redrafted to have citizen charters and service obligations with teeth. Regulators need to be made powerful enough to monitor not only construction but maintenance on a day-to-day basis.

Technology can be used for the said purpose like intelligent traffic management systems can track congestion in real time through the usage of artificial intelligence, while dynamic tolling can push traffic to flow more smoothly. Public engagement must also be facilitated, with grievance redressal systems that enable citizens to flag issues and insist on accountability.
Commercial facilities must be controlled by scientific zoning, with proper rest stops that balance safety with convenience. There must be environmental assessment as part of road planning, with goals for emission reduction and sustainable design.

At the end of the day, the theme must be that infrastructure is not about concrete but about people. Roads must be for the citizen first, not the contract.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in NHAI v. O.J. Janeesh is a landmark moment in Indian infrastructure law. By affirming that tolls cannot be collected without delivering safe and efficient roads, the Court has shifted the balance firmly in favour of citizens. It has reminded concessionaires and authorities that contracts cannot excuse neglect, and that constitutional rights to safety, fairness, and dignity must prevail.

Comparative experience shows that tolling can work if tied to service delivery, but fails when seen as a revenue-maximising tool. For India, this judgment should spark reforms in highway governance, ensuring transparency, accountability, and humane planning. If followed in spirit, it could mark the beginning of a new era where highways are not sites of frustration and danger but symbols of efficiency, safety, and dignity.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why did the Supreme Court stop toll collection on the Ernakulam–Mannuthy stretch?
The Court found that commuters were paying tolls but not receiving the benefit of safe and smooth travel. In paragraph 11 of its order, it explained that tolls are a form of user fee, not a tax. Since the road was riddled with black spots, incomplete underpasses, and congestion, the justification for toll collection was lost.

2. Does this mean toll collection can be suspended anywhere roads are bad?
Not automatically. The Court did not strike down tolling in general. It emphasised that suspension is justified when conditions become so unsafe and inconvenient that the purpose of a toll road is defeated. Citizens cannot be forced to pay for services not delivered.

3. What is the difference between a toll and a tax?
A tax is collected by the State to raise revenue for general purposes, while a toll is a user fee charged for a specific benefit, namely the use of a particular stretch of road. If the road fails to provide that benefit, the toll has no legal or moral basis.

4. What are black spots on highways and why are they important in this case?
Black spots are accident-prone locations caused by poor design, sudden diversions, or incomplete works. On the Ernakulam–Mannuthy stretch, black spots at Amballur, Perambra, and other points caused repeated accidents and long delays. The Court took note of these as evidence that the road was not fit for tolling.

5. How are roadside commercial establishments linked to highway safety?
Unregulated dhabas, fuel pumps, and shops often create informal entry and exit points on highways. This interrupts high-speed traffic, increases accidents, and undermines controlled access. While such establishments are important for travellers, they must be scientifically planned and regulated, not allowed to mushroom haphazardly.

6. How do other countries handle tolls and road quality?
In the United States, tolling contracts include strict service-level benchmarks, and concessionaires can face penalties for poor road conditions. The United Kingdom relies mostly on tax-funded highways, and the few tolled roads must justify themselves with better service. Singapore runs the world’s most advanced electronic tolling system, charging motorists dynamically while ensuring roads remain congestion-free.

7. What constitutional rights are involved in toll collection?
The Court linked the issue to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This includes the right to safe travel. It also invoked principles of fairness under Article 14, and environmental protection under Article 48A. In short, infrastructure cannot compromise fundamental rights.
8. What could be the long-term impact of this judgment?
The ruling could push NHAI and concessionaires to be more accountable. Future BOT contracts may include citizen charters, automatic penalties for poor maintenance, and independent audits. If taken seriously, it can make highways safer, reduce congestion, and restore public trust in tolling as a legitimate system.