The Court on Its Own Motion v. National Highway Authority of India, Nagpur & Others (2015)

Introduction 

This landmark judgment addresses the urgent need for highway expansion on National Highway 7 while balancing wildlife protection concerns in a critical corridor between major tiger reserves in Maharashtra. 

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) took suo motu cognizance based on a newspaper report titled "40 Killer Metre Stretch on NH7," highlighting the dangerous conditions causing accidents and casualties. 

• The case clarified the principles governing the balance between citizens' constitutional right to safe infrastructure and the fundamental duty to protect wildlife and forests. 

Facts 

• The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) initiated proceedings on its own motion after taking cognizance of a newspaper report exposing the dangerous condition of a stretch on National Highway 7. 
• The existing highway was described as a "death-trap" causing numerous accidents and casualties, prompting the court to direct action against the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and other respondents. 
• The proposed four-laning project faced significant delays due to pending permissions from the National Wildlife Board of India and the State Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. 
• The highway crossed a critical wildlife corridor between Pench Tiger Reserve and Kanha-Tadoba Reserve, raising concerns about the impact on endangered species including tigers and bison. 
• The National Wildlife Board of India eventually granted its approval for the project after consideration of wildlife protection measures. 
• The State Government issued final permission on September 9, 2015, under the Forest Conservation Act, clearing a major regulatory hurdle. 
• NHAI initially showed reluctance but agreed to implement comprehensive mitigating measures including construction of two wildlife crossings of 750 meters each and one of 300 meters with 5-meter height, along with other conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF). 

Issues Involved 

• Whether citizens' right to safe roads under Article 21 (Right to Life) justified expediting the four-laning project despite environmental concerns? 
• Whether the highway expansion and tree felling could proceed with appropriate compensatory measures and wildlife protection safeguards? 
• Whether judicial intervention was necessary to break bureaucratic deadlock and ensure timely implementation of the critical infrastructure project? 

Court's Observations 

• The Court held that citizens have a fundamental right to safe roads under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the existing highway's dangerous condition posed an immediate threat to public safety requiring urgent intervention. 
• The Court emphasized that the project had faced indefinite delays due to bureaucratic hurdles, and credited its judicial intervention along with involvement of the Chief Minister and Union Ministers for resolving the matter amicably. 
• The Court found that all necessary regulatory approvals had been obtained, including clearance from the National Wildlife Board of India and final permission from the State Government under the Forest Conservation Act. 
• The Court ruled that compensatory measures are mandatory when permitting highway expansion and tree felling, and directed implementation of wildlife protection safeguards. 
• The Court balanced competing interests by stating that while concern for wildlife is necessary as envisaged in Fundamental Duties, roads cannot remain in conditions where human beings lose their lives or suffer grievous injuries due to poor infrastructure. 
• The Court directed that Maharashtra's Chief Minister and Union Ministers of Surface Transport and Environment hold meetings with experts and stakeholders to ensure effective mitigation measures, particularly wildlife crossings allowing free movement of animals like tigers and bison. 
• The Court emphasized that development projects are crucial for national economic progress, particularly highways which serve as lifelines, while environmental safeguards must be integrated into project implementation. 
• The judgment underscored that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, equipped with expertise, is the appropriate authority to decide on environmental clearances, and courts should not intervene unless decisions are proven irrational or unlawful. 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment reinforces that infrastructure development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive but must be balanced through practical mitigation measures and compensatory mechanisms. 

The Bombay High Court permitted the four-laning project to proceed while mandating comprehensive wildlife protection measures, setting a precedent for sustainable development. 

The decision establishes that citizens' constitutional right to safe roads under Article 21 must be honored while fulfilling fundamental duties toward wildlife conservation, demonstrating how judicial activism can facilitate balanced progress that serves both human welfare and ecological preservation.