The Supreme Court issued directives under Article 32 to strengthen implementation of the Control of National Highways Act, 2002, emphasizing statutory obligations to prevent highway encroachments. It mandated grievance redressal mechanisms (portal/toll-free number), regular inspections, and surveillance teams while underscoring the Highway Administration’s duty to enforce Section 26 (removal of unauthorized occupation). The judgment established procedural safeguards for encroachment removal and ordered Standard Operating Procedures for transparency, affirming judicial oversight through continuing mandamus to ensure compliance with road safety norms.
Facts Of The Case:
The writ petition was filed by Gyan Prakash under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighting alarming road fatalities (53,181 deaths in 2017) due to encroachments on National Highways. The petitioner sought enforcement of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and Highway Administration Rules, 2004, alleging systemic failure to remove unauthorized occupations compromising road safety. The Supreme Court noted that while Highway Administrations were formally constituted, their ground-level implementation was ineffective, with no mechanism for public complaints or periodic inspections. During proceedings, the Court discovered that existing grievance systems like the toll-free number 1033 and the “Rajmargyatra” app lacked dedicated provisions for reporting encroachments. It also observed that only 20–30% of identified encroachments across states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh were cleared despite statutory mandates under Section 26 of the 2002 Act. The Court appointed an amicus curiae, who flagged gaps in enforcement, including the absence of surveillance teams and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). In its May 21, 2025 judgment, the Court issued binding directions for a centralized grievance portal, highway patrol units, and quarterly compliance affidavits, while keeping the petition pending for ongoing monitoring through continuing mandamus. The case exposed systemic lapses in safeguarding highway lands under the Union’s statutory duty.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of Gyan Prakash v. Union of India reflects a structured judicial intervention to enforce highway safety laws. Initiated as a Writ Petition (C) No. 1272 of 2019 under Article 32, the case first came before the Supreme Court in 2019, where the petitioner highlighted rampant encroachments under the Control of National Highways Act, 2002. The Court issued preliminary directions on October 10, 2023, requiring affidavits from the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) to demonstrate compliance with statutory duties. Dissatisfied with the lack of action, the Court appointed Ms. Swati Ghildiyal as amicus curiae on February 20, 2024, and mandated the creation of a grievance redressal portal and encroachment removal protocols by March 18, 2024. Subsequent hearings revealed inadequate implementation, prompting the Court to direct state-specific compliance reports from eight states by July 26, 2024. On August 27, 2024, the Court ordered the formation of dedicated inspection teams and a toll-free complaint system, later expanded to State Highways. The final judgment on May 21, 2025, consolidated these directives, instituting SOPs for surveillance teams, digital grievance tracking, and quarterly reporting, while retaining jurisdiction under continuing mandamus to monitor enforcement. The proceedings underscored the judiciary’s iterative approach to remedying systemic administrative failures.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Retired Lt. Col’s Promotion Grading After 20-Year Battle
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations in Gyan Prakash v. Union of India, emphasizing the state’s constitutional obligation to ensure highway safety under Article 21. The bench noted with concern the systemic failure to implement the Control of National Highways Act, 2002, particularly Sections 24 and 26 governing encroachment removal, despite 53,181 highway deaths in 2017. The Court observed that existing mechanisms like the ‘Rajmargyatra’ app were ineffective and non-transparent, lacking dedicated provisions for encroachment complaints and public feedback. It highlighted the absence of periodic inspections and willful neglect by authorities, citing how only 20-30% of identified encroachments were cleared in key states. The judgment underscored that bureaucratic inertia in enforcing statutory duties violated citizens’ right to safe travel, requiring judicial intervention through continuing mandamus. Notably, the Court remarked that digital solutions alone were insufficient without ground-level surveillance teams and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), stressing the need for police-assisted patrolling and CCTV monitoring of highways. These observations formed the basis for binding directives, blending technology-driven governance with physical enforcement to uphold the rule of law.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Gyan Prakash v. Union of India (2025 INSC 753), issuing a series of binding directives to enforce highway safety and encroachment removal under the Control of National Highways Act, 2002. The Court partially allowed the writ petition, retaining jurisdiction through continuing mandamus to ensure compliance. Key mandates included: (1) Operationalizing a dedicated grievance portal within three months for reporting encroachments, with geo-tagged evidence and public tracking of complaints; (2) Constituting surveillance teams comprising state police for regular highway patrolling; (3) Implementing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for inspections, requiring monthly reports on encroachment removal; and (4) Public awareness campaigns about grievance mechanisms via toll plazas and media. The judgment explicitly rejected mere paper compliance, directing the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to file quarterly affidavits demonstrating tangible progress. Notably, the Court expanded the scope of its orders to State Highways, citing their nexus with national road safety. While refraining from punitive actions, the bench (Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih) underscored that non-compliance would attract contempt proceedings. The decision balanced judicial oversight with executive autonomy, mandating collaboration between central/state agencies while preserving the Union’s statutory duty to keep highways encroachment-free under Section 23 of the 2002 Act.
Case Details:
Case Title: Gyan Prakash v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 753 Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1272 of 2019 Date of Judgment: May 21, 2025 Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here