Right to Safe Roads under Article 21: Immediate Public-Law Compensation for Pothole and Open Manhole Victims; District Compensation Committees and Personal Liability of Officials — Bombay High Court

Introduction

In a landmark order dated 13 October 2025, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.) has transformed a decade-long suo motu public interest litigation into a robust, enforceable framework for victim compensation, structural accountability, and time-bound road maintenance across Maharashtra. The proceeding traces back to a 24 July 2013 letter by Justice G.S. Patel (as he then was), catalyzing Suo Motu PIL No. 71 of 2013 on the deplorable state of roads in Mumbai and its metropolitan region. Over the years, the case integrated a wide array of stakeholders: the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM/BMC), MMRDA, MSRDC, PWD, MBPT, CIDCO, NHAI, and multiple municipal corporations and councils statewide.

The present order, delivered while considering an intervention application by Siddharth Sonaji Ingle, Founder President Lok Hitkarini Sabha, builds on a long chronology of interim directions (2015–2019), a detailed final judgment (24 February 2018, with a clarificatory order on 12 April 2018), and the Court’s revival of continuing mandamus in October 2024 following the withdrawal of an intervening SLP in August 2025. The core issues have remained tragically consistent: crumbling roads, potholes, open or unprotected manholes, systemic buck-passing among agencies, and recurring fatalities and injuries—especially affecting two-wheeler riders and low- and middle-income commuters—during every monsoon.

Against this backdrop, the Court has now decisively operationalized the fundamental right to safe roads under Article 21 by imposing a state-wide compensation grid, mandating the creation of district-level compensation committees paired with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), setting 48-hour repair and 6–8 week compensation timelines, and fixing personal responsibility and recovery from delinquent officers and contractors.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court’s 13 October 2025 order proceeds on the legal premise that the right to safe, properly maintained roads and footways is part of the right to life and dignified existence under Article 21. Despite numerous directions since 2015 and comprehensive orders in 2018, the Bench records ongoing failures and fatal incidents. Consequently, the Court issues detailed, binding directions that:

• Recognize and enforce public-law compensation for pothole and open manhole fatalities and injuries, payable by the concerned authority (Municipal Corporations, Councils, MMRDA, MSRDC, PWD, MBPT, NHAI, MHADA).
• Lay down a compensation grid: Rs. 6,00,000 for death; Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 for injuries, depending on gravity—without prejudice to other civil or statutory remedies.
• Create Compensation Committees across jurisdictions pairing the senior-most executive of the relevant authority with the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to ensure independent participation and constitutional oversight:
• Within Municipal Corporations: Municipal Commissioner + DLSA Secretary.
• Within Municipal Councils: Chief Officer + DLSA Secretary.
• Outside municipal limits: District Collector + DLSA Secretary.
• For MMRDA/MSRDC/PWD/BPT/NHAI: Principal Secretary/Chairperson/CEO + DLSA Secretary.
• Direct the first Committee meeting within seven days of any accident report and thereafter at least once in 15 days, especially during monsoon.
• Empower Committees to act suo motu, on applications by victims/legal heirs, or even based on media reports; require the police station to notify Committees within 48 hours of any incident.
• Mandate that all potholes, once notified, be attended to within 48 hours; failure entails departmental consequences for officers and liability for contractors.
• Require disbursal of compensation within 6–8 weeks; delay attracts 9% interest and personal responsibility of the Municipal Commissioner/Chief Officer/Collector/CEO/Chairperson/Principal Secretary, as applicable.
• Authorize disbursal from fines recovered from contractors, or failing that, from the concerned authority’s funds, with post-disbursal recovery from officers/engineers/contractors responsible after inquiry.
• Insist on strict disciplinary and penal action—blacklisting, penalties, departmental action, and appropriate criminal proceedings—against defaulting contractors and officers, in addition to financial recovery.
• Direct wide publicity of the compensation mechanism so affected persons can access remedies.
• Fix 21 November 2025 for state-wide compliance reports on complaints received, compensation disbursed, actions against contractors/officers, fines imposed, and departmental action.

The Interim Application (Lodging) No. 29119 of 2025 for intervention is disposed of as nothing survives in view of these directions. The PIL continues under the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction (continuing mandamus).

Analysis

Precedents and Prior Orders Anchoring the Decision

The present order consolidates and advances a long line of binding directions issued in this PIL:

• 20 May 2015 (Interim Directions): Foundational directions requiring municipal bodies and state agencies (MCGM, MMRDA, MSRDC, BPT, PWD) to maintain roads/footways; adopt scientific methods; create a multi-modal grievance redress mechanism (toll-free numbers, websites with photo upload, SMS) with tracking; display boards at excavation/repair sites; ensure quality control; sensitize officers; and widely publicize the mechanisms.
• 4 August 2015 Government Resolution: Single-window mechanism for pothole complaints in Mumbai via MCGM; proposal to bring all road maintenance under MCGM for unified accountability (decision still pending).
• 7 August 2015: Court presses for effective single-window functioning; highlights manhole safety and insufficiency of red flags/stones; directs PWD to prevent accidents and fix manholes with adequate night visibility measures.
• 8 July 2016: Involvement of Indian Roads Congress (IRC) and Central Road Research Institute (CRRI); exploration of advanced pothole repair technologies; insistence on quality materials even if costlier in the short term; resonates with the need for long-life road performance.
• 10 March 2017: Multi-agency presentation and commitments; observation of a “ray of hope” for pothole-free monsoon conditioned on monitoring and contractor accountability.
• 3 August 2017: Statewide expansion—impleadment of all municipal corporations and councils; appointment of MSLSA/DLSA functionaries as nodal officers to receive and escalate complaints—precursor to the 2025 compensation-committee model.
• 24 February 2018 and 12 April 2018 (Final Directions): Treats the right to have streets and footways in a reasonable condition as part of Article 21; directs creation of centralized and local grievance mechanisms, disabled-friendly websites, safeguards for visually impaired persons (aligning with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016), mandatory publicity, and quarterly state monitoring; affirms public law compensation in principle for negligence leading to injury/death.
• 7 December 2022: In the wake of a tragic incident involving a pregnant cow falling into an open manhole, the Court warns that future occurrences would entail personal responsibility of Municipal and Metropolitan Commissioners and Chief Engineers.
• June 2023 Orders: Mandate protective grills for manholes and urgent rectification; record that less than 10% of manholes had grills—insufficient and inconsistent with 2018 safety directions.
• 8 October 2024: Despite substantial compliance in some respects, the Court revives the Suo Moto PIL on the principle of continuing mandamus given the recurring public safety failures.

The Court also cites Sudhir Madan v. MCD for the principle that citizens have a fundamental right to use roads and public conveniences, reinforcing that safe, unobstructed and functional roads are not a luxury but a constitutional necessity. Earlier Bombay High Court pronouncements (including a 31 August 2006 judgment noted in the record) had already placed the right to reasonably maintained roads on the “highest pedestal” under Article 21—a foundation the present order enforces concretely through compensation and accountability mechanisms.

Legal Reasoning

The Bench reasons from first principles:

• Article 21 encompasses the right to safe and usable roads and footways. This includes the right to have roads free of dangerous potholes and manholes, and to walk/drive without unreasonable risk. Bad roads and open manholes obstruct the meaningful exercise of the right to life and dignity, especially during monsoons.
• Corresponding duty of the State/Authorities: Where a fundamental right vests in citizens, a correlative obligation lies on State instrumentalities and public authorities (Article 12) to protect that right. Sustained non-performance or negligent performance is unconstitutional.
• Public law compensation: The Court emphasizes that constitutional courts can award monetary compensation as exemplary damages under Article 226 for violation of fundamental rights, distinct from and in addition to private law remedies (tort claims) and criminal prosecution. This strict liability remedy penalizes breach of public duty and vindicates constitutional rights.
• Vicarious liability with recovery: To ensure public exchequer is not the ultimate victim, the Court structures liability in two steps—immediate disbursal by the concerned authority to the victim/family, followed by recovery from errant officers/engineers/contractors after inquiry, alongside blacklisting, penalties and departmental/criminal action.
• Structural and procedural safeguards: Recognizing the multi-agency nature of road control in metropolitan regions, the Court institutionalizes Compensation Committees with DLSA Secretaries, imposes strict timelines (48-hour repair; first meeting within 7 days; biweekly monitoring; compensation within 6–8 weeks), and enlists the police to notify incidents within 48 hours. The involvement of DLSA ensures accessibility, neutrality, and rights-based orientation.
• Deterrence via personal accountability: Persistent failures attract personal responsibility and 9% interest for delays in disbursal. This aligns with prior orders flagging personal responsibility when open manholes cause casualties.
• Continuing mandamus: Given recurring failures each monsoon despite elaborate guidelines since 2015, the Court sustains the PIL on a continuing supervisory docket, calling for measurable compliance reports.

Impact and Forward-Looking Significance

The order will likely have far-reaching consequences in Maharashtra and persuasive force nationally:

• Immediate relief to victims: A clear, accessible, time-bound public compensation pathway now exists with minimal procedural friction and DLSA involvement.
• Accountability cascade: Authorities must pay first; then recover from named officers and contractors, making negligence and substandard work financially and professionally risky. Expect more blacklisting, penalties, and prosecutions—a marked shift from the earlier culture of impunity.
• Operational discipline: The 48-hour repair rule, escalated monitoring, and interest for delayed compensation will push agencies to reorganize maintenance, stock materials, and mobilize rapid response, especially in monsoons.
• Contracting reforms: Prior orders (2018) already required the State to standardize technical specifications, performance standards, and contract terms; the 2025 order’s recovery and blacklisting thrust will compel performance-guarantee-backed, longevity-focused road contracts and independent quality audits. The Bench’s observation that roads should last 5–10 years—echoing best practices—should inform bid design and material selection.
• Unified responsibility pressure: The Court again notes the State’s unimplemented 2015 proposal to bring all road maintenance under one authority (MCGM) in Mumbai. The present enforcement may revive that policy imperative, reducing jurisdictional buck-passing.
• Inclusive design and safety: Earlier directions on visually-impaired-friendly portals and manhole grills for all locations—not only flood-prone zones—will likely be implemented more rigorously under the compensation risk environment.
• Replication potential: This framework—pairing DLSA with top administrators, setting compensation grids, imposing repair and disbursal SLAs, and enabling recovery—offers a portable model for other High Courts confronting road-safety failures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 21 (Right to Life): It protects not just existence but a dignified, meaningful life. Safe, usable roads and footways are essential to that dignity—hence part of Article 21.
• Public Law Compensation (Constitutional Tort): When State or public entities violate fundamental rights, High Courts can award compensation under Article 226 to vindicate rights and deter future violations. This is separate from filing a civil suit for damages (tort) or criminal complaints. Victims can pursue both; appropriate adjustments can prevent double recovery.
• Vicarious Liability and Recovery: The authority pays immediately to the victim, but can recover from the officer/engineer/contractor whose negligence caused the harm, after due inquiry. This balances victim relief and fiscal responsibility.
• Continuing Mandamus: A court keeps a case open to monitor compliance with its orders over time, especially where systemic issues recur (e.g., monsoon-linked potholes).
• Single-Window Grievance Redressal: One portal/helpline where citizens can complain, regardless of which agency controls a particular road; the system routes the complaint to the right agency and tracks resolution, with photo-uploads and status tracking.
• Structural Remedies: Courts increasingly use administrative structures—committees, nodal officers, reporting timelines—to ensure that rights are realized in practice, not just on paper.

How the New Compensation Mechanism Works (Practical Guide)

• Who can apply? Legal heirs in case of death; injured victims; Committees can also act suo motu (including on media reports). Police must inform Committees within 48 hours of any such incident.
• Where to apply? File with the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council/District Collector (as per location), concerned Authority (PWD/MMRDA/MSRDC/NHAI/MBPT), and separately submit a copy directly to the Secretary, DLSA of the district. Any of these offices must forward the application to the Committee without delay.
• Committee composition: Senior-most administrative head of the relevant authority + Secretary, DLSA.
• Timelines: First Committee meeting within 7 days of intimation; thereafter at least every 15 days (especially during monsoon). Compensation to be disbursed within 6–8 weeks from the claim; delay attracts 9% interest and personal responsibility.
• Quantum: Rs. 6,00,000 for death; Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,50,000 for injuries (based on severity). This is in addition to any other remedies under law.
• Funding and recovery: Pay first from fines recovered from contractors; if insufficient, from authority’s funds; then recover, post-inquiry, from the responsible officers/engineers/contractors. Also initiate disciplinary and criminal action and blacklisting as warranted.
• Repair obligation: All notified potholes must be repaired within 48 hours. Non-compliance invites departmental action and contractor liability.
• Publicity: Authorities must widely publicize the mechanism so families and victims can access relief.

Key Observations Underpinning the Directions

• Despite spending crores, newly constructed roads fail rapidly, while some decades-old roads remain intact—suggesting poor quality materials and substandard workmanship in many projects.
• The Court calls for roads to be built and maintained to last 5–10 years, reflecting best-practice standards for urban roads and long-term economy.
• Recurring fatalities on account of open manholes and unprotected sites show systemic neglect; the Court has earlier warned of personal liability for Commissioners and Chief Engineers if such incidents recur.
• Victims are disproportionately from middle- and low-income groups, often the sole breadwinners, making prompt compensation a necessity for survival and dignity.
• The Court records that, even in 2023, less than 10% of manholes had protective grills; grills must be installed widely, not only in known flood-prone areas.

Interaction with Earlier Directions

The 2025 order does not displace the 2015–2018 architecture; rather, it adds an enforceable compensation and accountability layer. Earlier directions still bind:

• Maintain toll-free numbers, websites with uploadable photographs, SMS, and tracking—all year-round.
• Make portals accessible to persons with visual disabilities.
• Display signage and safety barricading at excavation and repair sites, especially at night.
• Ensure traffic police actively notify bad road conditions causing congestion to the local authority for immediate action.
• Give wide publicity to grievance mechanisms and now, to the compensation mechanism.
• Use modern scientific methods, improve quality control, and incorporate IRC/CRRI/STAC guidance.

Potential Implementation Challenges and Best Practices

• Attribution/Causation: Committees must develop clear checklists: site inspection reports, photographs, witness statements, police records, medical records, and maintenance logs to determine if a pothole/open manhole caused the incident.
• Avoiding double recovery: Where victims later succeed in civil suits or statutory claims (e.g., under motor vehicle or tort law), appropriate adjustments/undertakings can be designed to prevent duplication while ensuring prompt relief now.
• Data and transparency: Publish monthly ward-wise data on complaints, rectifications, and compensation decisions; maintain a public dashboard to sustain deterrence and citizen oversight.
• Contract design: Include performance guarantees, defect liability periods, milestone inspections, independent audits, and blacklisting provisions integrated with the Court’s directions.
• Materials and methods: Adopt long-life materials and proven technologies; deploy pre-monsoon preventive maintenance rigorously; keep rapid response units with hot/cold mix, signage, barricades, and night-visibility gear.
• Manhole safety: Accelerate installation of protective grills/covers across all areas; maintain inspection schedules and emergency hotlines for cover replacement.
• Single authority in Mumbai: The State should revisit its 2015 consolidation proposal to vest maintenance responsibility with MCGM for all city roads while retaining land ownership with respective agencies. Unified responsibility reduces buck-passing.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s 13 October 2025 order converts a decade of exhortations into an enforceable, citizen-centric regime. It does three transformative things:

• It makes the right to safe roads under Article 21 immediately meaningful by prescribing a public-law compensation grid with strict timelines.
• It creates a state-wide institutional architecture—Compensation Committees with DLSA oversight, police intimation duties, and periodic monitoring—ensuring accessibility, neutrality, and continuity.
• It personalizes accountability by mandating recovery from negligent officers and contractors, blacklisting, penalties, and even criminal action, backed by continuing mandamus and reporting obligations.

For citizens, the order promises prompt relief and safer roads. For public authorities and contractors, it signals the end of impunity and the beginning of measurable performance. In emphasizing long-life road standards, universal manhole safety, rapid repair SLAs, and financial accountability, the Court sets a template that could resonate across India. The scheduled compliance reporting on 21 November 2025 will be an early test of whether the State and its agencies have internalized this constitutional mandate and translated it into safer streets and saved lives.