“Continuing Mandamus for Highway Safety” – Supreme Court’s New Framework for Removal of Encroachments on National Highways

1. Introduction

Case: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) 1272/2019, decided 21 May 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction
Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka & Augustine George Masih

This public-interest writ petition under Article 32 was triggered by alarming statistics: over 53,181 deaths on Indian highways in 2017 alone. The petitioner, a public-spirited citizen, alleged systemic failure on the part of the Union and its statutory agencies to prevent and remove unauthorised occupations on National Highways. Such encroachments, he argued, directly compromise road safety.

The writ invited the Court to examine the implementation of the Control of National Highways (Land & Traffic) Act, 2002 (the 2002 Act) and the Highway Administration Rules, 2004 (2004 Rules) as amended in 2019. After a series of interim orders dated 10-10-2023, 20-02-2024, 30-04-2024 and 27-08-2024, the Supreme Court finally crystallised a robust supervisory regime on 21-05-2025. It creates a continuing mandamus that binds the Union, Highway Administrations, NHAI, NHIDCL and State authorities to:

Conduct periodic inspections and surveillance;
Install citizen grievance mechanisms (portal, toll-free number & mobile App);
Frame and publicise Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs); and
Report compliance to the Court every quarter.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Statutory Duties Affirmed. National Highways vest in the Union (National Highways Act, 1956) and are to be administered through Highway Administrations created under § 3 of the 2002 Act. The Court held that the Central Government’s obligation encompasses maintenance, encroachment-free corridors and safety-oriented amenities.
Operational Gaps Identified. Although officers were “appointed on paper”, there was no survey, no machinery, and no citizen interface to detect and act upon encroachments.
Continuing Mandamus Issued. Treating the matter as one of ongoing public safety, the Bench retained seisin and directed:
- Creation of dedicated inspection teams with assigned highway stretches;
- Digital & telephonic grievance platforms: 1033 helpline, “Rajmargyatra” App and a forthcoming web portal;
- Wide publicity and in-situ signage at toll-plazas/food-plazas;
- Framing of exhaustive SOPs covering inspection frequency, data capture, notice procedure under § 26, and time-bound removal;
- Formation of surveillance teams comprising State Police for round-the-clock patrolling;
- Quarterly affidavits by Joint Secretary (Highways), MoRTH, detailing actions and citizen complaints disposed;
- Consideration and implementation of the Amicus Curiae’s suggestions; and
- Next compliance listing on 15-09-2025.
Citizen-Centric Mechanism Institutionalised. By grafting technology-enabled complaints and feedback loops into the statutory architecture, the Court transformed an opaque administrative set-up into a transparent, accountable system.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Doctrinal Influences

The orders themselves do not cite many judicial precedents expressly, but the Court’s approach draws on three established doctrines:

Continuing Mandamus. First evolved in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) & M.C. Mehta series, this device allows the Court to supervise executive performance over time. The present judgment applies it to highway safety.
Right to Life & Safe Mobility. In P.U.C.L. and Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that safe road conditions stem from Article 21. The bench reiterates that prevention of highway deaths is a constitutional duty.
Public Trust Doctrine. By emphasising that National Highway land “vests” in the Union for public use, the Court relies on the principle that the State holds natural resources in trust for its citizens (see M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, 1997).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Statutory Interpretation: Sections 24 & 26 are complementary – the first aims to prevent occupation; the second prescribes removal procedure. The Court highlighted that subsection (8) of § 26 allows summary removal where delay jeopardises safety, thereby arming officials to act swiftly without violating natural justice.
Rule 3 (2019 Amendment): The substituted rule mandates Highway Administrations to issue SOPs, regulate traffic, and monitor subordinate authorities. Non-compliance was treated as a dereliction warranting judicial directions.
Federal Cooperation: Though highways are a Union subject, removal often requires local police and revenue machinery. The Court’s directions explicitly bind State authorities via MoRTH’s circulars, overcoming federal inertia.
Technology as Enabler: Recognising citizen smartphones as ubiquitous sensors, the Court endorsed the “Rajmargyatra” App and a web portal as compliance tools, thereby empowering users to crowd-source enforcement.

3.3 Impact Assessment

The judgment is poised to be a game-changer in infrastructure governance:

Standardisation Across India. By mandating SOPs and uniform digital platforms, the Court ensures consistency of enforcement—previously disparate across NHAI, NHIDCL and State PWDs.
Heightened Accountability. Quarterly affidavits, geo-tagged complaints, and public dashboards will produce auditable trails. Bureaucratic apathy can now be flagged and penalised in real time.
Resource Allocation. MoRTH and NHAI must earmark budgets for surveillance teams, CCTV networks and portal maintenance—reshaping fiscal priorities.
Template for Other Sectors. The combination of continuing mandamus and tech-enabled citizen interface may be extended to rail safety, urban encroachments and environmental compliance.
Potential Litigation Surge. Clarifying the rights and remedies under the 2002 Act may embolden affected parties (truckers, local residents, civic groups) to seek judicial relief against highway obstructions and dangerous designs.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Continuing Mandamus: An order that remains alive after judgment, enabling the Court to monitor ongoing compliance through periodic reports.
Highway Administration (2002 Act): A statutory body (or officer) appointed by the Central Government to manage land use, traffic regulation and safety on National Highways.
Section 24 vs. Section 26: § 24 prevents occupation by requiring prior permits; § 26 provides a step-by-step (or in emergencies, summary) removal mechanism for unauthorised occupation.
SOP (Standard Operating Procedure): A detailed manual prescribing how officials will survey, record, serve notice, evict encroachers and maintain logs—akin to a rulebook ensuring uniform practice.
Rajmargyatra App: A mobile application developed by NHAI that allows road users to upload geo-tagged photos/videos of hazards, track grievance status, and receive roadside assistance.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gyan Prakash v. Union of India heralds a paradigm shift in highway governance. By converting statutory powers that lay dormant since 2002 into enforceable obligations, the Court has:

Anchored the right to safe travel within the constitutional fold of Article 21;
Institutionalised technology-driven citizen participation;
Imposed a rigorous inspection-and-removal architecture through SOPs, surveillance teams and digital dashboards; and
Ensured longevity of compliance via a continuing mandamus and fixed timeline (Sept 2025) for first-phase reporting.

Going forward, every incident of encroachment on National Highways will be measured against the benchmarks set in this judgment. The decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to blend constitutional oversight with administrative modernisation, thereby creating a replicable model for safeguarding public infrastructure in India.