Court emphasizes duty of care owed by NHIDCL despite contracting out works, directs bi-weekly progress reports, audit by Border Roads Organisation, and investigation into contractor collusion following PIL on hazardous road conditions in Tripura
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Tripura High Court took suo motu cognizance of the deplorable condition of stretches of National Highways NH 108B and NH 208 in Tripura. The Court found the National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), a government-owned entity responsible for the development and maintenance of national highways in the region, liable for failing to maintain safe and motorable roads despite contracting the work to Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) contractors.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initiated following persistent media reports highlighting the hazardous state of these highways, which were described as "death traps" due to extensive potholes, broken surfaces, and waterlogging during monsoon seasons. The deteriorated condition posed serious risks to the lives and property of commuters in Tripura, a northeastern state heavily reliant on road connectivity due to the absence of railway infrastructure.
The Court underscored the critical importance of these highways for the socio-economic integration and safety of the North-Eastern states, noting that these roads also traverse border areas adjacent to Bangladesh. Highlighting provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Court clarified that NHIDCL, as the delegate of the Central Government, owed a statutory duty of care to users of national highways. This duty remains even when construction and maintenance are outsourced to EPC contractors.
Drawing upon precedents including the Supreme Court rulings in MCD v. Sushila Devi (1999) and NHAI v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch (2021), the Court held that NHIDCL cannot abdicate responsibility and must ensure effective supervision and timely maintenance. It further emphasized the principle of administrative accountability, citing recent judgments that articulate the necessity for public authorities to be answerable for their actions and omissions affecting citizens' rights.
The Court examined affidavits and reports filed by NHIDCL and the State Government, as well as an inspection report by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Khowai, which detailed severe road damages including alligator cracking, rutting, blocked drainage, and waterlogging across several highway stretches. The Court noted NHIDCL’s failure to complete projects within contractual timelines, with some works delayed by over a year and only partial progress made. The EPC contractors, despite receiving high financial compensation exceeding Rs. 5 crore per kilometer, reportedly failed to mobilize adequate resources and maintain the highways to prescribed standards.
The judgment criticized NHIDCL for awaiting a delayed technical report from the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) for nearly a year before undertaking repair works and expressed concerns about possible collusion between NHIDCL officials and contractors due to repeated leniency in granting extensions and tolerating substandard work.
As corrective measures, the Court directed NHIDCL to submit bi-weekly progress reports detailing repair and maintenance activities on specified highway stretches. The State Government was instructed to consider initiating civil and criminal proceedings against NHIDCL and its contractors for negligence and endangering public safety. Furthermore, the Court ordered an independent audit of the highways by the Engineering staff of the Border Roads Organisation to be submitted by January 30, 2027. The Union of India was also tasked with conducting a prompt inquiry into allegations of corruption and collusion in contractor selection and execution, with a report due by December 1, 2026.
The Court's robust orders reaffirm the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that infrastructure development and maintenance serve the public interest effectively and hold government agencies accountable for lapses. This judgment sends a strong message that public safety cannot be compromised and that statutory authorities must proactively discharge their duties.
Bottom Line:
National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) owes a duty of care to users of national highways, even when maintenance and construction are contracted to EPC contractors. Accountability in administrative actions and the rights of citizens to safe infrastructure are emphasized.
Statutory provision(s):
National Highways Act, 1956 Sections 4, 5
Court on its own motion v. Union of India, (Tripura)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974945
