In a strong observation that resonates with lakhs of daily commuters across India, the Supreme Court on Monday questioned the rationale behind charging toll fees from motorists when road conditions force them into nightmarish delays.
The remark came while hearing a petition related to the Edappally–Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544 in Thrissur, Kerala, where motorists recently faced a staggering 12-hour traffic jam on a 65-kilometer stretch.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, reserved its verdict on appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and concessionaire Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. challenging the Kerala High Court’s August 6 order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza.
“Why pay Rs 150 for a 12-hour ordeal?”
During the proceedings, the CJI posed a pointed question:
“Why should a person pay Rs 150 if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other end? A road that is expected to take one hour takes 11 more hours, and they have to pay a toll as well.”
The observation underscored the Court’s view that motorists cannot be made to pay for infrastructure that fails to deliver the promised ease of travel.
Background of the Case
The Kerala High Court had ordered a four-week suspension of toll collection, citing the deteriorating condition of the highway and massive congestion caused by ongoing underpass construction.
The Court stressed that the relationship between NHAI and road users was one of “public trust,” which had been breached due to poor maintenance.
Senior advocate Jayant Muthraj, representing the original petitioners before the High Court, reiterated that it was NHAI’s fundamental duty to ensure motorable roads.
He argued that continuing toll collection under such circumstances amounted to exploitation and a violation of public trust.
NHAI and Concessionaire’s Defense
Appearing for the NHAI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta admitted that monsoon rains had slowed construction works but argued that alternative service roads were made available to ease congestion.
He contended that a proportionate reduction in tolls could be a fairer solution rather than a complete suspension.
However, Justice Chandran disagreed, remarking that a 12-hour delay far exceeded any proportional adjustment.
He also rejected Mehta’s claim that the accident triggering the massive traffic block was an “act of God,” noting instead that it was caused by a lorry toppling into a pothole.
On behalf of the concessionaire Guruvayoor Infrastructure, senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that the company had duly maintained the 60 km stretch under its charge and that bottlenecks were the fault of third-party contractors like PSG Engineering.
He stressed that halting toll revenue had already caused a loss of Rs 5–6 crore within 10 days, while day-to-day operational costs continued.
“My revenue stream cannot be stopped when I am not responsible for the work entrusted to others. The impact on me has already been huge,” he submitted, calling the High Court’s order “grossly unfair.”
The Supreme Court, however, pointed out that the High Court had already given the concessionaire the liberty to pursue claims against the NHAI for such losses.
Divan insisted that such a remedy was insufficient given the immediate financial burden of maintaining the toll plaza.
Supreme Court Reserves Verdict
After hearing all parties, the bench said:
“We will consider everything reserved for orders.”
The matter, therefore, now rests with the top court, which will have to balance the rights of commuters, the responsibility of the NHAI, and the contractual claims of private concessionaires.
For the thousands of motorists who suffered through the 12-hour jam, the Court’s pointed questions may signal relief — and a stronger push for accountability in India’s toll collection system.
#SupremeCourt #KeralaTrafficJam #NH544 #TollPlaza #NHAI #PublicTrust #HighwayInfrastructure #PaliyekkaraToll #JusticeForCommuters #RoadSafety #IndiaHighways
