Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India in National Highway Authority of India and Anr. v. O.J. Janeesh and Ors. (SLP(C) No. 22579/2025, citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 819) has once again emphasized the principle that toll can only be levied when highways are maintained in a manner fit for use, safe for travel, and compliant with contractual as well as statutory obligations. The Court’s judgment arose from the challenge filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against a Kerala High Court order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza on the Edapally-Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544. The High Court had acted in response to repeated complaints of commuters, transporters, and citizens regarding the dismal condition of the road, long-standing potholes, and traffic congestion which made travel hazardous.
Background of the Dispute:
The dispute traces its roots to years of dissatisfaction among road users in Kerala. The Edapally-Mannuthy highway stretch, though formally upgraded and maintained under concession agreements with private entities, had steadily deteriorated due to poor maintenance, delayed repairs, and heavy monsoon damage. Citizens’ associations and commuters highlighted how vehicles frequently suffered damages, accidents occurred more often, and travel time increased substantially. Yet, toll was continuously collected at the Paliyekkara plaza. The Kerala High Court, taking cognizance of the grievances, held that toll cannot be charged from citizens if the road infrastructure itself is unfit, as this amounted to charging for a service that was not being provided.
NHAI’s Arguments before the Supreme Court:
The NHAI, aggrieved by the Kerala High Court’s decision, approached the Supreme Court contending that toll collection was part of concessionaire agreements executed under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the rules framed thereunder. It argued that toll is not directly linked to the daily condition of the road, but rather to the capital expenditure incurred in construction, operation, and maintenance of the highway. According to NHAI, suspension of toll collection would undermine investor confidence in public-private partnerships and adversely affect the financial model of highway development across India. The NHAI also emphasized that sporadic potholes or temporary damages cannot be grounds for halting toll collection, as mechanisms already exist for ensuring rectification and imposing penalties on concessionaires for delay in maintenance.
Respondents’ Stand:
The respondents, including citizen activists and road user associations, strongly defended the Kerala High Court’s order. They submitted that toll is justified only when there is reciprocal performance, meaning the road should be motorable, safe, and reasonably maintained. They pointed out that the Edapally-Mannuthy stretch was in a deplorable state for years, with not just sporadic potholes but entire sections of the carriageway broken, leading to long traffic jams and fatal accidents. According to them, allowing toll collection in such circumstances would amount to exploitation of citizens and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and safe passage. They also argued that public accountability should be enforced, as citizens cannot be forced to pay for infrastructure that does not exist in its promised form.
Issues Before the Court:
The Supreme Court was tasked with resolving certain key questions: (1) Whether toll collection is a contractual/statutory right independent of the actual state of the highway; (2) Whether courts have the power to suspend toll collection when roads are in disrepair; (3) To what extent public rights, constitutional guarantees, and consumer protection principles intersect with contractual rights of concessionaires and statutory powers of NHAI.
Observations of the Court:
The bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, took a pragmatic approach while balancing public interest with contractual and statutory obligations. The Court observed that toll collection is not a mere revenue-generating mechanism but a reciprocal arrangement where the user pays for access to quality, safe, and properly maintained roads. If the basic condition of safety and usability is absent, the very foundation of toll levy collapses. The Court noted that it cannot be the intent of Parliament that citizens are compelled to pay toll for traveling on highways that endanger life and property.
The Court further emphasized that public infrastructure must be accountable to the people. It underscored that contractual obligations between NHAI and private concessionaires cannot override fundamental constitutional rights of citizens. In particular, it highlighted Article 21 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which protect the right to life and the right to trade, both of which are directly affected when highways are unusable but toll continues to be levied.
Legal Reasoning:
The Supreme Court reasoned that under the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, the levy of toll is conditional upon the highway being properly maintained. Clauses of concession agreements also require concessionaires to ensure upkeep of the road and empower NHAI to suspend toll in case of non-compliance. The Court held that the Kerala High Court was correct in exercising its jurisdiction to suspend toll collection when it found gross violations of these obligations. The NHAI’s argument that toll was merely for recouping construction costs was rejected on the ground that such a view would lead to absurd results, permitting toll to be levied indefinitely even if the highway completely collapsed.
Judgment:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara plaza. The Court categorically held that “no toll can be charged for broken highways,” reiterating that citizens cannot be forced to pay for infrastructure that is unsafe and unusable. It directed the NHAI to ensure immediate repair and restoration of the Edapally-Mannuthy stretch, failing which toll collection would remain suspended. At the same time, the Court clarified that its ruling does not mean every minor defect in a highway justifies suspension of toll. Only when the condition of the road is such that it substantially affects safe passage and negates the benefit of a highway can toll collection be stopped.
Wider Implications:
This judgment has significant implications for highway policy across India. Firstly, it reinforces the principle of accountability in public-private partnerships and concessionaire agreements. Concessionaires can no longer assume that toll collection is an unconditional entitlement; it is now judicially confirmed as contingent upon proper maintenance of highways. Secondly, it empowers citizens and civil society organizations to demand fair treatment, as courts are willing to intervene when roads are left in a dilapidated state. Thirdly, it pushes NHAI and other authorities to adopt stricter monitoring mechanisms and to penalize concessionaires for negligence.
The ruling also balances investor concerns by clarifying that suspension of toll will not be triggered by minor or temporary defects, but only in cases of gross and continuing neglect. Thus, it reassures investors that financial models of highway projects will not be destabilized by frivolous litigation, while simultaneously safeguarding citizens’ rights.
Conclusion of the Narrative:
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is not merely about one toll plaza in Kerala; it represents a reaffirmation of constitutional values in governance. It ensures that development models respect the dignity, safety, and rights of citizens. It also sends a powerful message to authorities that contractual obligations cannot trump the basic right to life and safe infrastructure. This judgment harmonizes economic considerations with constitutional morality and sets a benchmark for future disputes involving public infrastructure and user rights.