Supreme Court Directs Regular Inspections, Citizen Portal and Police Surveillance to Remove Encroachments on National Highways

A bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a writ petition under Article 32 raising systemic failures in implementation of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and the Highway Administration Rules, 2004, with specific concern for safety and unauthorised occupation of National Highway land.

The Court held that existing statutory powers must be implemented robustly and issued detailed supervisory directions to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents to prevent and remove encroachments and to strengthen grievance redressal. The judges recorded that, on the material before it, the "machinery is available only on paper" and that the Central Government bore an obligation to ensure highways were kept safe and free of encroachments. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The maintenance of highways includes the obligation to keep them in good condition. It also includes keeping them free of encroachments and, most importantly, providing adequate safety measures to reduce the possibility of accidents." The bench directed constitution of dedicated inspection teams for defined stretches, development of a citizen portal (with toll-free reporting and photo/location uploads), wide publicity of the existing "Rajmargyatra" mobile application, issue of Standard Operating Procedures for inspections, constitution of surveillance teams consisting of State Police for regular patrolling, and filing of compliance affidavits within fixed timelines. The Court further recorded that the petition must remain pending and that a continuing mandamus was appropriate.

Background The petition was filed by Gyan Prakash, appearing in person, invoking statistics from the "Road Accidents in India – 2017" report and challenging inadequate enforcement of the 2002 Act and the 2004 Rules as amended in 2019. Earlier orders dated 20 February 2024, 30 April 2024 and 27 August 2024 had flagged absence of periodic surveys, lack of a citizen grievance mechanism, and inadequate removal of encroachments under Section 26 of the 2002 Act. The Court noted that Section 3 required establishment of Highway Administrations, Section 24 prevented occupation of highway land and Section 26 provided a procedure for removal of unauthorised occupation, including an independent emergency power under sub-section (8) to remove hazards affecting traffic or highway structures.

The Ministry filed affidavits and relied on a circular of 18 March 2024, a toll-free number (1033) and the "Rajmargyatra" mobile application as grievance channels; the Amicus Curiae, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, pointed to deficiencies in inspection frequency, unclear redressal procedures and lack of accessibility for complaints specifically about encroachments. The Court found the statutory duties under Rule 3 (as amended in 2019) had not been demonstrated on record and that periodic inspections, exhaustive circulars, SOPs and surveillance were necessary. The petition remained pending; the Court issued a continuing mandamus with staged compliance: several directions had three-month timelines for affidavit compliance and implementation, and the matter was listed for reporting compliance on 15 September 2025. The Court also recorded appreciation for assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 753 Case Title: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Gyan Prakash (petitioner-in-person) For the Respondent(s): Union of India — Shri K. M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General; Ministry of Road Transport & Highways / NHAI — represented through affidavits and official officers (no private counsel specified in order)