Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in C P Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala (WP(C) 32680/2008), once again came down heavily on the condition of roads in the State and the persistent accidents caused by their deplorable state. The matter came up before Justice Devan Ramachandran on August 21, 2025, where the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Kerala government submitted that road restoration works had begun across the State. The Corporation of Cochin also confirmed the same, and the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) informed the Court that the restoration of the Kaloor-Kadavanthra road was nearing completion. However, despite claims that action had been taken against engineers responsible for the poor road conditions, no official reports were produced before the Court. The amicus curiae, assisting the Court in this long-standing matter, pointed out that the roads were still in poor condition, with only peripheral improvements visible due to the recent stoppage of rains. Taking serious note of the situation, the Court reiterated that the right to travel is a constitutional right, while the right to safety is placed even higher under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court warned that procrastination in repairing and restoring roads amounted to a “virtual crime” since bad roads not only curtail the right to travel but also endanger the lives of citizens.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, C P Ajithkumar, represented through counsel, had approached the High Court seeking urgent judicial intervention into the abysmal road conditions in Kerala that have repeatedly caused accidents and loss of lives. The petitioner argued that the State government and its agencies, including the PWD, had consistently failed to fulfill their duty to provide safe and motorable roads, despite collecting taxes and tolls from citizens for infrastructure maintenance. It was submitted that citizens had a right to safe roads as part of their fundamental rights under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioner argued that the State’s negligence amounted to a gross violation of this right, since every pothole, unattended stretch, or broken road became a hazard capable of causing fatal accidents. In support, the petitioner highlighted several tragic incidents, including one in Thrissur, where poor road conditions had led to severe accidents, yet no concrete accountability had been fixed. The petitioner further contended that merely cosmetic repairs or temporary patchworks undertaken during inspections were insufficient, as they deteriorated within weeks and reflected a culture of negligence and corruption within the PWD. It was also stressed that engineers and contractors responsible for substandard work had escaped liability, with disciplinary action rarely enforced. The petitioner sought a binding direction from the Court to the State to ensure time-bound and quality road repairs, accountability of officials, and systemic reforms to prevent recurring road hazards, arguing that without such intervention, the cycle of poor roads, accidents, and official apathy would continue unchecked.

Arguments of the Respondents:

On behalf of the State, the government pleader submitted that restoration works had already commenced across the State and that both the PWD and municipal bodies were actively engaged in repairing damaged roads. It was emphasized that the monsoon rains had severely affected road quality, causing delays in maintenance, but with the rains now subsiding, permanent restoration works were being carried out. The Corporation of Cochin and the GCDA also confirmed progress, specifically highlighting that the Kaloor-Kadavanthra road, a major artery, was nearing completion in its restoration. The State argued that action had been taken against delinquent engineers responsible for poor road conditions, though specific reports were yet to be submitted before the Court. The respondents urged the Court to acknowledge the logistical and climatic challenges faced by authorities, especially given Kerala’s heavy rainfall, which made long-lasting road repairs difficult during monsoon months. They also pointed out budgetary constraints, increasing vehicular load, and recurring natural calamities as significant hurdles in ensuring flawless roads. The government contended that while the situation was not ideal, genuine efforts were underway, and judicial patience was required to allow these projects to reach completion. They assured the Court that continuous monitoring mechanisms were being implemented, quality control measures were being improved, and systemic reforms were under consideration to ensure that roads would meet safety standards. At the same time, the State sought to resist any sweeping directions that could be seen as judicial overreach into executive functioning, contending that administrative discretion must be respected within the framework of accountability.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Devan Ramachandran, after hearing submissions from all parties, recorded the progress reported by the State and its agencies but expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of concrete reports on disciplinary actions against engineers responsible for the poor road conditions. The Court observed that the submissions of ongoing work did not align with ground realities, as the amicus curiae highlighted that most roads still remained in a hazardous condition with only peripheral changes visible due to stoppage of rains. Taking note of past accidents, particularly one in Thrissur where fatalities occurred, the Court strongly remarked that bad roads not only restrict the constitutional right to travel but also directly endanger the right to safety, which falls under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Ramachandran emphasized that the right to safety is placed at a much higher pedestal than the right to travel, because the former is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life. The Court condemned procrastination in restoring roads, terming it a “virtual crime” against citizens, as delays only exposed the public to further risks of accidents and fatalities. It was also clarified that if any road remained unattended by the next posting date, the engineer in charge would be required to be personally present before the Court to explain the negligence. This direction reinforced the Court’s intent to fix personal accountability on engineers rather than allowing blame to be diffused across departments. By elevating the right to safe roads to a facet of Article 21, the Court made clear that infrastructure negligence could no longer be treated as a minor administrative lapse but as a constitutional violation. The judgment reflects a judicial shift toward recognizing safe and motorable roads as not just a matter of convenience but as a fundamental entitlement of every citizen. With its strong observations, the Court sent a clear warning to the State that excuses of rain, funds, or systemic delay cannot justify endangering lives. The case continues to be monitored, with the Court demanding detailed reports on progress and disciplinary actions in subsequent hearings, thereby ensuring sustained judicial oversight in the matter.