Expressway network surges from 93 km to 5,110 km in 11 years: Gadkari, ETInfra
Advt
By ,
ETInfra
Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari informed Parliament on Thursday that the length of access-controlled National High Speed Corridors, including expressways, has surged from a mere 93 km in March 2014 to approximately 5,110 km at present, reports IANS.Of this impressive 5,110 km, 2,636 km is already operational, providing faster and more efficient travel across the country, the minister stated in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha.Gadkari said, 'The overall National Highways (NH) network has also witnessed substantial growth, expanding from 91,287 km in March 2014 to a robust 146,342 km today.''This expansion is coupled with a marked acceleration in the pace of highway construction, which has increased from 12 km per day in 2014-15 to a peak of 34 km per day in 2023-24. While the pace is currently at 29 km per day in 2024-25, it still represents a significant improvement,' he further added.Currently, 1,240 national highway projects spanning a total length of 29,400 km are under construction across the country, representing a massive investment of ₹7.8 lakh crore.The Centre has also played a pivotal role in upgrading state roads. Since April 2014, approximately 54,004 km of state roads, including state highways (SHs) and greenfield stretches, have been notified as national highways, informed Gadkari.Minister Gadkari explained that the government considers proposals from various state governments and Union Territories for the declaration of state roads as new National Highways. These decisions are made based on key principles such as connectivity requirements, traffic density, inter-se priority, and synergy with the PM GatiShakti National Master Plan (NMP).At present, 206 under-construction NH projects, with an estimated cost of ₹91,290 crore, are delayed in Rajasthan and the northeastern states, including Assam. The majority of these projects are scheduled for completion in a phased manner by 2025-26, with only a few expected to extend beyond 2026-27.Notably, one NH project, costing ₹410 crore and passing through Jalore district in Rajasthan, is among those targeted for completion in 2025-26.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
7 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Shashi Tharoor declined Congress' offer to speak on Operation Sindoor: party sources
The Congress asked party MP Shashi Tharoor if he was interested in speaking during the Operation Sindoor debate in Parliament but he declined and instead expressed a desire to speak on 'The Indian Ports Bill, 2025', party sources said on Monday (July 28, 2026). Also read: Parliament Monsoon session updates on July 28, 2025 There has been speculation on whether Mr. Tharoor, who led the delegation to the U.S. among other countries, will be picked as a speaker by the Congress, given that his enthusiastic endorsement of the government's action following the terror attack has soured his ties with the party. Asked whether Mr. Tharoor was asked to speak during the debate, a senior Congress leader said, 'It is a practice that senior leaders are asked whether they are interested in speaking on a major issue. Gaurav Gogoi and K. Suresh had reached out to him and asked if he was interested in speaking during the debate on Operation Sindoor, to which he said he is not interested and would like to speak on the Ports Bill.' There was no immediate response from Mr. Tharoor on the assertion by the party sources. 'Vow of silence' Asked whether he would speak in Parliament on Operation Sindoor, the seasoned Lok Sabha MP had earlier quipped to the media that he is on a maun vrat (vow of silence). Opposition parties have framed their public criticism of the government around alleged intelligence lapses behind the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which left 26 civilians killed, and U.S. President Donald Trump's claims of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly attacked the government's foreign policy, claiming that India did not receive international support on Operation Sindoor and has cited Mr. Trump's frequent mediation claims to target the ruling alliance. The government has rejected Mr. Trump's claims.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Jaishankar Destroys Cong Over 26/11 Inaction, Explains India's Stand After Pahalgam
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar delivered a fiery rebuttal to the Opposition during the Operation Sindoor debate in Parliament. Referring to the UPA government's response after 26/11, he slammed their "inaction" and drew a stark contrast with the Modi government's decisive action post the Pahalgam terror attack. Jaishankar pointed to the shameful Sharm-el-Sheikh declaration which bizarrely included a reference to Balochistan, saying: "After 26/11, you signed that." He also targeted Opposition leaders for spreading misinformation about India's diplomatic outreach and reminded the House that he visited China not for photo-ops or games, but to assert India's position. Operation Sindoor, according to Jaishankar, was a calibrated and bold step that sent an unmistakable message to Pakistan and the world. Watch this explosive speech that sets the record straight on India's foreign policy, past failures, and today's assertive diplomacy.#operationsindoor #moditrump #pmmodi #donaldtrump #moditrumpphonecall #jaishankar #pahalgamattack #indiaforeignpolicy #pakistan #terrorism #unsupport #trf #induswaterstreaty #loksabha #opsindoordebate #modigovernment #upa #indiaforeignpolicy #toi #toibharat #bharat #trending #breakingnews #indianews Read More
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of 'burnt cash' found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be 'completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme'. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome. Supreme Court hearing on Justice Varma's petition updates: SC asks Sibal to place on record the fact-finding committee report, adjourns case to July 30 The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing 'burnt currency', 'convicted' Justice Varma in the public eye. 'There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to 'enhance' the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct. 'Violation of Article 121' The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution. 'Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already 'convicted' in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee's finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma. 'If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no 'behaviour' or 'misbehaviour' involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma's] removal,' Mr. Sibal argued. 'Political overtones' The counsel said the issue of 'removal' of the judge has taken on political overtones. 'But removal is also a political procedure,' Justice Datta observed. 'Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,' Mr. Sibal responded. 'You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee's jurisdiction… why did you not?' Justice Datta asked. Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was 'illegal'. 'Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,' Justice Datta responded. The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee's report on record.
