Access to safe, well-maintained roads a part of right to life: Supreme Court judgment
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held the right to travel to any part of the country was a basic right.
'Since the right to access any part of the country, with certain exceptions and restrictions under certain circumstances, is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the right to safe, well-maintained, and motorable roads is recognised as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,' Justice Mahadevan, who authored the recent judgment, observed.
The Court said the maintenance of roads was squarely the responsibility of the State.
'It is the responsibility of the State to develop and maintain the roads directly under its control,' the court noted.
The judgment was based on an appeal filed by Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Private Limited against the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited (MPRDC).
The dispute appeal was against a State High Court decision on a concession agreement between the two entities for the development of the Umri-Pooph-Pratappur Road on a 'Build, Operate and Transfer' basis. The total cost of the project was ₹73.68 crore for the augmentation of the existing road from the T-Junction of State Highway 45 at Umari Village to 43.775 km on the Umri-Pooph-Pratappur section of Major District Road in the State.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court seeks State's response to PIL plea seeking to initiate process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for T.N. DGP post
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday sought response of the State government to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking the direction to the Central and the State governments to immediately initiate the process for empanelment of eligible IPS officers for the post of Director General of Police (DGP), Tamil Nadu. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete sought response from the State on the procedure it would be adopting. The court also sought response regarding the Supreme Court guidelines in the Prakash Singh v. Union of lndia case, Supreme Court clarifications to the directions, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) guidelines and the Single Window System. The court was hearing the PIL petition filed by K. Yasar Arafath of Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district who sought appropriate directions regarding appointment of the Tamil Nadu DGP in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of lndia judgment. The incumbent DGP Mr. Shankar Jiwal is set to retire on August 31. However, till date the State government has not taken steps to initiate the mandatory process of empaneling eligible IPS officers and forwarding the names to UPSC for preparation of a panel, as directed by the Supreme Court, he said. He claimed there were credible reports indicating the possibility of appointing an in-charge or acting DGP or seeking an extension for the current DGP without following the prescribed process. It amounts to contempt of the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case, which require a merit based transparent selection of the DGP from a panel prepared by the UPSC in consultation with the State government, he said. The petitioner claimed in view of the upcoming Tamil Assembly Elections in 2026, the State government had planned to keep the Head of the Police Force as per their choice to get the support of the Police Department till the upcoming election. The Supreme Court has taken a serious note of the violation of its directions by several States, including the appointment of in-charge DGP and expressed grave concern over the continued non-compliance, he said. The petitioner sought a direction to restrain the State from appointing any officer as in-charge or acting DGP or granting extension to the retiring DGP, without following due process and UPSC panel recommendation pending disposal of the petition. The failure of the authorities to comply with the binding judicial directions undermines the rule of law and the independence and the professionalism of the police force, which has serious consequences for public administration and governance, he said. The court has ordered notice and posted the matter for hearing on August 11.
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Will not interfere in Madras High Court order against DMK membership drive, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene against an interim order of the Madras High Court restraining the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu from sending OTP verification messages to mobile phone users during its ongoing Oraniyil Tamil Nadu membership drive. 'The court has to protect the citizens. Go back to the High Court. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Dismissed,' a Bench, headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, said. The apex court did not budge even as senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the DMK, submitted that the party was not collecting Aadhaar details. On July 21, a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete of the Madras High Court had issued an interim injunction to the limited extent (of OTP messages) till the issue of right to privacy and data protection were examined in detail. The High Court reasoned that the fundamental rights of the people were at stake. The High Court said that during the door-to-door membership drive, personal information, including mobile phone numbers, were obtained and OTP verification messages were sent to these. 'Data protection of the individuals is an essential element of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the absence of accountability and transparency in the data collected from individuals across the State, it is an issue which needs elaborate analysis,' the Bench had observed.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 minutes ago
- First Post
Colombia's former President Uribe petitions Supreme Court to lift house arrest after conviction
Colombia's former president Álvaro Uribe has petitioned the Supreme Court to lift his house arrest while he appeals a 12-year sentence for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. read more Colombia's former president Alvaro Uribe, the country's first previous leader to be convicted of a crime, petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday for his release while appealing his sentence of 12 years house jail. Uribe's conviction and punishment last Friday marked the end of his long career as one of Colombia's most contentious politicians. The 73-year-old, who is still popular and powerful among conservatives, conducted a rigorous military battle against drug traffickers and the FARC rebel group as president from 2002 to 2010. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Uribe was found guilty of tampering with witnesses in a separate inquiry investigating his suspected involvement with right-wing paramilitaries responsible for atrocities while fighting leftist guerrillas. He was also found guilty of impeding justice. At his sentencing the trial court judge declared him to be a flight risk and ordered him to be placed under house arrest at his home in the town of Rionegro, near Colombia's second city of Medellin. Uribe's lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday to set him free, assuring he had no intention of leaving his homeland. A law-and-order hardliner, Uribe was a close ally of the United States and retains ties to the American right. He claims his conviction is a political witch hunt by the administration of left-wing President Gustavo Petro. He has until August 13 to appeal his conviction. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has decried the case against Uribe, saying it represented 'the weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch by radical judges.'
