SC finds Delhi parallel in Kerala highway mess

TWo hours of rain down ar sufficiency to paralyse new delhi, the sublime Court remarked on Monday, drawing a parallel between the havoc wreaked by monsoon rains in the national capital and the traffic chaos on a national highway in Kerala due to pothole-ridden stretches and marathon traffic jams.“In Delhi, you know what happens…if it rains for two hours, the entire city gets paralysed,” a bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and also comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria observed.The court’s observations recall how last week’s showers brought the national capital to a grinding halt as heavy rain left several arterial roads submerged, snapping crucial links and stranding thousands of commuters for hours even after the downpour ended.The remarks came during a hearing on the Paliyekkara toll plaza in Thrissur, where a four-week suspension of toll collection ordered by the Kerala High Court is under challenge by NHAI and the concessionaire.At the very outset, the bench flagged a “12-hour traffic block” that choked the Edappally–Mannuthy stretch over the weekend. When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta attributed the gridlock to “an act of God” after a lorry toppled, the bench retorted: “The lorry did not fall down on its own. It fell into a pothole and turned over.” Mehta said service roads had been laid as alternatives where underpasses are under construction, but progress was hit by the monsoon.At this, the bench pressed NHAI on user charges. When told the toll for the 65-km section was ₹150, the court asked: “Why should a person pay ₹150 if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other end? A road which is expected to take one hour, it takes 11 more hours… and they have to pay toll as well.”The SG cited precedent for proportionate reduction rather than a complete halt to tolling. Responding, the bench remarked: “For the 12-hour block, the National Highway should pay something to the commuters…But even with traffic, the stretch should not take more than three hours, and for 12 hours, there is no question of proportionate reduction.”Monday’s grilling followed the court’s August 14 remarks, when the same bench pulled up NHAI for collecting toll “even without completing the roads,” questioning the very basis of user fees amid unfinished works and chronic congestion on NH-544. Then, too, the bench was unmoved by distinctions between NHAI and the concessionaire’s roles, remarking: “You should have planned for intersections and other measures before starting to collect tolls… You start collecting tolls even before the roads are ready.”The August 14 hearing emanated from an August 6 Kerala High Court order that suspended toll collection at Paliyekkara for four weeks, castigating NHAI for “total apathy” and holding that the authority could not demand user fees while breaching the “tie of public trust” with road users. The high court had directed the Union government to address public grievances in consultation with NHAI, the state chief secretary, and the concessionaire, noting that despite reminders since February 2025, the situation remained unaddressed. It underscored that NHAI’s duty to ensure smooth, obstruction-free traffic is integral to its right to collect tolls: “The moment public trust is breached, the right to collect toll fees cannot be forced on the public.”During the Monday hearing, the bench took note of NHAI’s core grievance that the high court permitted the concessionaire to recover losses from NHAI due to toll suspension. Indicating a possible middle path, the bench said it could clarify that disputes between NHAI and the concessionaire are to be resolved through arbitration.Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for Guruvayoor Infrastructure, argued the concessionaire maintained the portion under its remit and that five “bottlenecks” lay where third-party underpass works were underway. Naming PSG Engineering as the third-party contractor that “took charge of these areas in April 2024,” Divan pegged the impact on collections at ₹5-6 crore over 10 days and contended an order of this nature could not be issued against a private party under writ jurisdiction.Senior advocate Jayant Muthraj, representing the road-user petitioners who had moved the high court, emphasised it was NHAI’s duty to ensure motorable conditions and coordination among all players.”