🛣️Road to Justice: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Safe Roads under Article 21
⚖️ Case Background
The case stemmed from a dispute between Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd., a private concessionaire, and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC). In 2012, UPP Tollways was awarded a ₹73.68 crore contract for upgrading a 43.775 km stretch of road on a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis.
Initially, the contractor raised a dispute before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, a statutory body under the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, but later withdrew the reference and initiated private arbitration under the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICADR) in 2022.
The MPRDC challenged this move through a writ petition, asserting that the agreement was a “works contract” and disputes must be resolved only through the statutory tribunal.
🧾 Key Findings of the Supreme Court
✅ 1. Safe Roads are a Constitutional Right
The Court unequivocally held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to safe, motorable roads. The duty to ensure public road safety lies squarely on the State, and this obligation cannot be diluted or delegated to private parties through contracts.
“The State cannot wash its hands of public safety merely because a concessionaire is maintaining the road.”
✅ 2. Statutory Tribunal Cannot Be Bypassed
The Court noted that once a statutory mechanism exists for adjudication, such as the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Adhiniyam, private arbitration clauses cannot override the legislative mandate. The ICADR arbitration was thus rendered non-est and without jurisdiction.
✅ 3. Forum Shopping is Abuse of Process
The Court condemned the contractor’s conduct of first invoking, then withdrawing from, the statutory forum, only to later approach a private forum. It termed this as “forum shopping” and an abuse of judicial process, aimed at evading limitation and securing a favourable venue.
✅ 4. Writ Petition Against Private Party Maintainable
The respondent’s contention that a writ petition cannot be filed against a private company was rejected. The Court reiterated that when a private party performs a public function, such as toll collection and road maintenance, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
📌 Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling is a milestone in public interest infrastructure litigation. It strengthens citizens’ rights under Article 21, discourages forum shopping in commercial disputes, and upholds the supremacy of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms.
The judgment sends a clear message—contractual terms cannot override constitutional duties, especially when public safety is at stake.
🔚 Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in UPP Tollways is a progressive and rights-centric interpretation of Article 21. In the age of increasing privatisation of public functions, this verdict acts as a constitutional check to ensure that the State remains accountable for the welfare and safety of its citizens.
For those involved in infrastructure contracts or public-private partnerships, this decision highlights the importance of complying with statutory forums and respecting the constitutional duties attached to public services.