LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 388Decided 13 Apr 2026
SMW(C) No.-000009-000009 - 2025
Justice J.K. Maheshwari · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Background

After 34 people died in successive road accidents on 2-3 November 2025 in Phalodi (Rajasthan) and Rangareddy (Telangana), the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of systemic negligence and infrastructure failures on national highways, appointing a Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Over several months, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed comments and affidavits, and the Solicitor General and Amicus Curiae jointly worked out a set of practical interim measures to prevent further such accidents. This order records the interim directions issued by the Court while the matter remains pending.

Decision Breakdown

The Court issued a detailed set of interim directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, including a ban on trucks and heavy vehicles parking anywhere on a highway carriageway or shoulder except at designated bays, enforcement through GPS-tagged photographic evidence and automated e-Challans, and a requirement that NHAI, the National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation, State PWDs and the Border Roads Organisation be jointly and severally responsible for compliance within their jurisdictions, with a consolidated compliance report due within 75 days. The Court observed that national highways constitute only about 2% of India's road network but account for nearly 30% of road fatalities, and held that the right to life under Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure safe roads, not merely a duty to refrain from unlawfully taking life. It directed that copies of the order go to the Chief Secretaries, Directors General of Police of all States/UTs, State Legal Services Authorities, and NHAI, and that a report also go to the Court-appointed Road Safety Committee. The matter was listed for further compliance reporting after two months.

Lesson Learnt

The Supreme Court treats road safety on national highways as a facet of the fundamental right to life under Article 21, meaning courts can compel binding, time-bound administrative reforms (like the parking ban and mandatory reporting here) rather than treating road-accident prevention purely as a policy matter for the executive. Citizens and authorities alike should note that avoidable hazards such as illegal roadside parking are now subject to direct judicial enforcement mechanisms including GPS-based evidence and automatic e-Challans.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case