Suspension of NHAI toll collection may open floodgates for PILs across the country, and rightly so

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) act as a catalyst for good governance in India. It has democratised access to justice by removing legal and economic barriers for marginalised sections of society.

The judiciary has time and again safeguarded constitutional rights by stepping in when other state organs failed in their duties, whether it be the Ganga Pollution Case or the Oleum Gas Leak Case.

One such recent incident is the ruling of the Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India & Anr v. OJ Janeesh & Ors, upholding the Kerala High Court’s order dated August 6, 2025, which suspended toll collection at a highway.

The Kerala High Court in the said order suspended the toll collection by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) or its concessionaire on the Mannuthy–Edappally stretch of NH-544. The High Court emphasised that a toll can only be justified when citizens are provided with safe, motorable and well-regulated roads, and that any failure to ensure this constitutes a breach of the public’s legitimate expectations and undermines the very basis of the toll regime. The High Court had further held that the relationship between the public and the NHAI is governed by the principle of public trust and once that trust is breached, the right to collect toll cannot be enforced. It further observed that if the public is not receiving the benefits in return for the levy of toll, it cannot be compelled to pay solely on account of a private concession agreement.

Both the Supreme Court and the High Court noted that when roads are unsafe and unmotorable, suspension of toll collection becomes necessary and that public accountability in such matters demands the intervention of the Central government, being the ultimate authority on the levy of fees.

NHAI is primarily responsible for the development, management and maintenance of the national highway network across India, including toll collection. A toll is levied as a user fee from vehicles for using designated stretches of roads, bridges, bypasses or tunnels, with rates fixed based on vehicle type, distance travelled, road category and other notified parameters. The rationale is grounded in the user-pay principle, whereby those who directly benefit from improved highways contribute to their upkeep rather than shifting the burden to the general taxpayer. Revenues generated serve multiple purposes: recovery of capital costs involved in large-scale construction, continuous operation, maintenance to ensure safe and motorable conditions, etc.

Legally, the framework is anchored in the National Highways Act, 1956, and the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. Rule 3(1) specifically empowers the Central government to levy such fees for use of any part of a national highway, including bridges, bypasses and tunnels.

Roads are not just transit corridors; they are part of critical public infrastructure that must ensure public safety and convenience. The Supreme Court in the Noida Toll Bridge case (2025) held that if a project has been made for the public benefit, it cannot be exempted from judicial scrutiny, especially when the right and interest of the public is infringed upon by the levying of user fees. The Court discussed that the state’s action must prioritise public interest and reiterated that if the action of the state favours a private entity at the expense of public welfare, then it is invalid and should be struck down.

Moreover, the government and its agencies act as trustees of public resources, and they are bound under law to manage them in a way that protects public interest. It is the duty of the NHAI to maintain roads properly and failure to do so violates its duty under the public trust doctrine. Hence, a toll cannot be demanded if the public is not provided with proper infrastructure, which otherwise would be in breach of the fiduciary relationship between the state and the road users.

On February 25, 2025, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Sugandha Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors delivered a scathing judgment, criticising NHAI and the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) for charging full toll on the Pathankot-Udhampur stretch of NH-44, which was under construction and in a poor condition. The High Court directed NHAI to collect only 20% of the toll amount until the road becomes motorable.

On June 3, 2025, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court also delivered a similar judgment in the case of V Balakrishnan v. NHAI, restraining NHAI from collecting toll on the Madurai-Tuticorin NH-38 stretch, citing poor road conditions. However, the Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the order.

The ruling in OJ Janeesh is likely to open the floodgates for similar and much-needed PILs across the country, as it marks the first instance where such a verdict has been upheld by the Supreme Court. By linking toll collection with road quality, the Court has affirmed that a toll is not merely a revenue-generating tool but a conditional charge, one that presupposes the provision of safe and motorable highways to the public. Going forward, toll practices and highway maintenance standards may also face intensified judicial scrutiny, reshaping accountability in this sector.

Varun Kalra is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India.

Mohd Rehan Ali is a final-year law student at Aligarh Muslim University.