Right to Road Safety

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21, and the State cannot abdicate its responsibility by outsourcing road development and maintenance to private entities. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Umri Pooph Pratappur (Upp) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Umri Pooph Pratappur (Upp) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation and Another. (2025) Case? 

• In 2012, Umri Pooph Pratappur Tollways Private Limited (a private company) entered into a concession agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC), a state-owned entity, for developing the Umari-Pooph-Pratappur Road. 
• The project was structured as a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) arrangement with both toll collection and annuity payments, valued at Rs. 73.68 crores initially. 
• The private company provided a performance security of Rs. 3.68 crores through a bank guarantee and began work after the appointed date was fixed as 20th June, 2012.  
• However, complications arose when a new Independent Engineer was appointed who rejected the previously approved designs and drawings, forcing the company to dismantle and re-execute substantial portions of work. 
• Due to these changes and delays allegedly caused by the state corporation's actions, the project cost escalated to Rs. 99.80 crores.  
• The private company raised 19 claims totaling Rs. 280.15 crores before the Independent Engineer, seeking compensation for various issues including additional work, delays, loss of toll revenue, idling charges, and loss of future business opportunities. 
• When most claims were rejected, the private company initially filed Reference Case No. 61 of 2018 before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal (established under state law).  
• While this case was still pending, the company simultaneously invoked the arbitration clause in their contract and approached the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) in New Delhi under the national Arbitration Act. 
• MPRDC objected to this parallel arbitration, arguing that under Madhya Pradesh's special state law (the 1983 Act), all disputes arising from works contracts with state entities must be exclusively decided by the state arbitration tribunal, regardless of any arbitration clauses in the contract.  
• They filed a writ petition in the High Court to stop the private arbitration proceedings. 
• The private company then withdrew its case from the state tribunal and continued with the private arbitration.  
• The High Court sided with MPRDC and quashed the private arbitration proceedings, leading to the current Supreme Court appeal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that road development and maintenance is fundamentally a State responsibility, observing that "the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is recognized as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is the responsibility of the State to develop and maintain the roads directly under its control." 
• The Court clarified that writ petitions can be maintained against private entities when they perform public functions, stating: "The contract for laying of a State Highway/District Road, when assigned by the Corporation owned and run by the government, assumes the character of a public function – even if performed by a private party – and would satisfy the functionality test to sustain the writ petition." 
• The Court reaffirmed that State legislation creating special tribunals for works contracts takes precedence over general arbitration laws, noting: "the 1983 Act, being a special law, has an overriding effect and mandates that disputes arising out of such works contracts must be adjudicated exclusively by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal." 
• The Court deprecated the practice of pursuing parallel remedies, observing: "the appellant's conduct in withdrawing the reference petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, without seeking liberty to re-agitate the claims, and simultaneously initiating proceedings under the 1996 Act, constitutes forum shopping.  
  • This conduct, aimed at circumventing the statutory mechanism and reviving abandoned claims, is tainted with mala fides." 
• The Court held that private agreements cannot override statutory requirements, stating: "parties cannot contract out of a statutory obligation enacted in furtherance of public interest" and that "Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement to the extent it purports to permit private arbitration, is inoperative insofar as it seeks to override the statutory mandate of the 1983 Act." 
• The Court noted that the appellant's claims were time-barred, observing: "the appellant's claims – which arise from events dating back to 2013-2015 – are also barred by limitation under Section 43 of the 1996 Act read with the Limitation Act, 1963. The belated invocation of arbitration in 2022, and its continuation in 2025, is thus clearly time-barred and legally unsustainable." 

What Is the Scope of Article 21? 

• Article 21 provides that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law," establishing fundamental protection for every person, including both citizens and foreigners, within Indian territory. 
• The provision encompasses two interconnected rights - the right to life and the right to personal liberty - which the Supreme Court has described as the "heart of fundamental rights" in India's constitutional structure. 
• State Obligation and Constraint Article 21 operates as a binding constraint on all state entities, including government departments, local bodies, and legislatures, requiring them to follow established legal procedures before depriving any person of life or liberty. 
• Expanded Interpretation of Right to Life the Supreme Court has established that the right to life extends beyond mere survival to include "being able to live a complete life of dignity and meaning," encompassing quality of life and human dignity aspects. 
• Procedural Fairness Standard Following the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978), the Court mandated that "any procedure under law for the deprivation of life or liberty of a person must not be unfair, unreasonable or arbitrary," establishing substantive due process requirements. 
• Derivative Rights Under Article 21 The provision has been judicially expanded to include numerous specific rights such as right to privacy, shelter, health, education, pollution-free environment, cultural heritage protection, and protection against custodial violence. 
• Constitutional Integration Article 21 intersects with Article 19 freedoms to provide "additional protection" where personal liberty overlaps with specific constitutional freedoms, creating a comprehensive framework for individual rights protection.

How Does the Supreme Court Interpret Road Safety as a Fundamental Right Under Article 21? 

• Constitutional Foundation for Road Safety Rights : 
  • The Supreme Court established that Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to safe and well-maintained roads, stating: "the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is recognized as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 
• Linkage with Freedom of Movement: 
  • The Court connected road infrastructure rights with fundamental freedoms, observing: "Since the right to access any part of the country, with certain exceptions and restrictions under certain circumstances, is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is recognized as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 
• State's Constitutional Obligation: 
  • Drawing from Article 21's mandate, the Court emphasized the state's duty: "it is the responsibility of the State to develop and maintain the roads directly under its control" as this falls within the broader protection of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. 
• Public Function Character under Article 21: 
  • The Court recognized that road construction assumes constitutional significance when performed for the state, noting: "The contract for laying of a State Highway/District Road, when assigned by the Corporation owned and run by the government, assumes the character of a public function – even if performed by a private party" thereby bringing it within the constitutional framework of Article 21. 
• Expansive Interpretation of Right to Life: 
  • The judgment reflects the Supreme Court's established jurisprudence that Article 21's "right to life" extends beyond mere survival to include quality of life aspects, with safe and accessible road infrastructure being recognized as an essential component of dignified living and the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.