🏛️ Supreme Court's Landmark Road Safety Order 2026: 40m/75m Highway Restrictions
⚖️ Supreme Court Strengthens Road Safety Under Article 21 | 2026 INSC 388
The Supreme Court of India has passed a significant suo motu order on road safety, highway encroachments, illegal parking and protection of human life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India & Others, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9 of 2025, along with W.P. (C) No. 1100 of 2025, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive interim directions concerning National Highways across India.
The order was passed on 13 April 2026 and is reported as 2026 INSC 388.
The order assumes particular significance because the Supreme Court has recognized that the safety of commuters is an integral facet of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Among the important directions are restrictions concerning commercial structures and encroachments within the Right of Way (ROW), restrictions on highway-side land-use changes, illegal parking by heavy vehicles, highway safety zones, accident blackspots, emergency response and highway surveillance.
🚨 Background of the Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance following the tragic loss of 34 lives in successive road accidents on 2 and 3 November 2025 in Phalodi, Rajasthan and Rangareddy, Telangana.
The Court, by its earlier order dated 10 November 2025, took note of what it described as systemic negligence and catastrophic infrastructure failures contributing to avoidable casualties.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the concerned authorities and sought comprehensive reports regarding the failures that posed a threat to public safety.
The Court also appointed Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, assisted by Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Advocate-on-Record, and Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate.
After suggestions were placed before the Court by the learned Amicus Curiae and the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court found the proposed measures practical and necessary and proceeded to issue detailed interim directions.
🏗️ Ban on New Dhabas, Eateries and Commercial Structures on National Highways
One of the most significant directions issued by the Supreme Court concerns unauthorised commercial activity within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highways.
The Court directed:
🚫 Construction or operation of any new dhaba, eatery or commercial structure within the Right of Way of any National Highway is prohibited with immediate effect.
The direction covers new commercial structures constructed or operated within the highway ROW.
The District Magistrates have been directed to enforce the demolition/removal of new or existing unauthorised structures within 60 days, in accordance with the procedure under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and the applicable SOP dated 07.08.2025.
This direction is particularly important because highway-side commercial activity can lead to:
🚗 Illegal parking;
🚶 Pedestrian movement on carriageways;
🛣️ Traffic obstruction;
⚠️ Reduced visibility;
🚑 Difficulties in emergency response; and
💥 Increased risk of accidents.
📏 40 Metres for Residential and 75 Metres for Commercial Land-Use Change
Another significant direction concerns land-use restrictions around National Highways.
The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to issue notifications within 60 days prohibiting change of land use:
🏠 40 metres — Residential
🏢 75 metres — Commercial
The distance is to be measured from the mid-point of the National Highway, and the restrictions are to be consistent with the applicable IRC norms.
It is important to understand the wording of the order correctly.
The Supreme Court did not simply declare an immediate blanket prohibition on every construction within 40 metres or 75 metres. Rather, it directed State Governments to issue notifications prohibiting change of land use within these distances.
Therefore, the 40-metre and 75-metre directions should be understood as a direction for State-level regulatory notifications concerning change of land use, rather than inaccurately describing them as an immediate universal construction ban.
The Court further directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to facilitate uniform notifications across States within the prescribed period.
🚧 Removal of Existing Unauthorised Highway Structures
The Supreme Court has also taken a strict position concerning existing unauthorised structures.
District Magistrates have been directed to enforce the demolition or removal of unauthorised structures within the prescribed 60-day period, subject to the procedure under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002.
The direction is therefore not limited only to future construction.
It also requires the authorities to take action against existing unauthorised structures falling within the relevant highway framework.
📜 No Licence, NOC or Trade Approval Without Highway Clearance
The Supreme Court has also imposed an important restriction on the grant or renewal of permissions for highway-side activities.
The Court directed that:
No department, authority or local body shall grant or renew any licence, NOC or trade approval for any site within highway safety zones without prior NHAI/PWD clearance.
Existing licences for such sites are also required to be reviewed within 30 days.
This means that local authorities cannot independently grant or renew relevant permissions where the property falls within a highway safety zone without the required clearance from the concerned highway authority.
🚛 Ban on Parking of Heavy and Commercial Vehicles on Highway Carriageways
The Supreme Court has also issued strict directions regarding parking of heavy and commercial vehicles.
🚫 No heavy or commercial vehicle shall park or stop on a National Highway carriageway or paved shoulder except at:
🅿️ Designated parking bays;
🛣️ Lay-bys; or
🏨 Wayside Amenities.
The Court directed that enforcement should be supported by:
📹 Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) real-time alerts;
📍 GPS-timestamped photographic evidence;
🧾 Integrated e-Challan generation; and
👮 Enforcement by State Police, Transport Departments and NHAI.
District Magistrates have also been directed to establish standard operating procedures for periodic inspections and patrolling.
🏚️ Crackdown on Highway Encroachments
The Supreme Court has directed the concerned highway authorities to conduct detailed inspections and submit reports concerning highway encroachments.
The authorities have been directed to provide information regarding:
🔍 Dedicated inspection teams;
🏚️ Encroachments identified;
📜 Notices issued under Section 26 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002;
🚧 Structures demolished; and
⚖️ Compliance with earlier Supreme Court directions.
The NHAI has also been directed to operationalise the Rajmargyatra encroachment complaint module, including:
Geo-tagged uploads;
Grievance tracking; and
An appeal mechanism.
The Court also directed activation and dissemination of the toll-free number 1033 for highway encroachment complaints.
👮 District Highway Safety Task Force in Every District
The Supreme Court has directed the constitution of a District Highway Safety Task Force in every district through which a National Highway passes.
The Task Force is to include representatives of:
District Administration;
Police;
NHAI or the concerned land-owning agency;
PWD; and
Local bodies.
The District Collector and Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police have been given joint responsibility for timely encroachment removal.
The Task Force is required to conduct fortnightly review meetings and maintain minutes of those meetings.
📹 Dedicated Highway Surveillance and Patrolling
The Court has directed State Police and Transport Departments to constitute dedicated highway surveillance teams.
These teams are required to undertake regular patrolling of National Highways in addition to NHAI's existing 24×7 route-patrolling vehicles.
The Court has further directed that such vehicles be equipped with Vehicle Tracking Devices.
The objective is to ensure continuous monitoring and early identification of dangerous conditions instead of waiting until an accident occurs.
💻 Advanced Traffic Management System for Highway Safety
Technology has been given significant importance in the Supreme Court's directions.
NHAI has been directed to operationalise its Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) on four-lane and six-lane highways and expressways.
The system includes:
📹 Traffic Management Control Centre cameras;
🚘 Speed detection systems;
🎥 Vehicle Incident Detection System cameras;
📢 Variable Message Signboards; and
☎️ Emergency Call Boxes.
The Court also directed that non-operational systems should be made functional within the prescribed period.
🚑 Ambulances and Emergency Response Every 75 Kilometres
The Supreme Court has directed NHAI to deploy Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulances and recovery cranes at intervals not exceeding 75 kilometres on every National Highway stretch.
These may be deployed at:
Toll plazas;
Wayside Amenities; or
Dedicated posts.
The Court expressly connected this requirement with the positive obligation of the State under Article 21 to ensure prompt and timely emergency medical response.
🅿️ Truck Lay-Bys Every 75 Kilometres
The Court has directed NHAI and MoRTH to ensure construction of truck lay-by facilities at intervals of every 75 kilometres on National Highways.
The Court recognized the practical problem faced by heavy vehicle drivers who drive continuously over long distances.
Wayside Amenities are required to provide, at minimum:
🛏️ Rest areas;
🍴 Food services;
🚻 Washrooms;
🅿️ Safe parking;
🩹 First-aid facilities; and
🚦 Retro-reflective signage visible from 500 metres.
💡 Accident Blackspots and Highway Lighting
The Supreme Court has directed MoRTH and NHAI to identify accident blackspots and critical areas on National Highways.
The Court directed the publication of a comprehensive list of accident blackspots.
It further directed a policy framework requiring measures such as:
💡 High-intensity LED/high-mast lighting;
📸 Speed enforcement cameras;
🚧 Retro-reflective warning signs; and
🛣️ Transverse bar markings.
The Court prescribed a timeline for completing the required installations.
⚖️ Article 21: Right to Life Includes the Right to Safe Passage
Perhaps the most important constitutional aspect of this order is the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 21.
The Court observed that National Highways constitute approximately 2% of India's total road length but account for nearly 30% of all road fatalities.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a high-speed road must not become a corridor of danger because of administrative lethargy or infrastructure deficiencies.
The Court held that the Right to Life under Article 21 is not merely a guarantee against unlawful taking of life.
It is also a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued.
The Court consequently recognized the safety of commuters as an integral facet of the right to live with dignity.
🏛️ Supreme Court Uses Article 142 to Protect Human Life
The Supreme Court issued these extensive directions in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Court emphasized that:
“No pecuniary or administrative constraint” can outweigh the sanctity of human life.
The detailed timelines imposed upon NHAI, MoRTH, State Governments, District Magistrates, Police and other authorities demonstrate the urgency attached by the Court to highway safety.
The Court also made the concerned implementing agencies jointly and severally responsible for compliance within their respective jurisdictions.
🔑 Key Directions of the Supreme Court at a Glance
| Issue | Supreme Court Direction |
|---|---|
| 🏗️ New dhabas/eateries | Prohibited within National Highway ROW |
| 🚫 Unauthorised structures | Removal/demolition within prescribed 60-day period |
| 🏠 Residential land-use change | 40 metres from highway midpoint |
| 🏢 Commercial land-use change | 75 metres from highway midpoint |
| 📜 Licence/NOC | Prior NHAI/PWD clearance required in highway safety zones |
| 🚛 Heavy vehicle parking | Prohibited on carriageways/paved shoulders except designated facilities |
| 👮 Safety Task Force | To be constituted in every district through which NH passes |
| 📹 Surveillance | Dedicated highway surveillance and patrolling |
| 🚑 Emergency response | BLS ambulances and recovery cranes at intervals not exceeding 75 km |
| 🅿️ Truck lay-bys | Every 75 km on National Highways |
| 💡 Accident blackspots | Identification and safety measures mandated |
| 💻 ATMS | Operationalisation on relevant highways and expressways |
❓ Does the Supreme Court Order Mean Every Property Near a National Highway Is Automatically Illegal?
No.
This distinction is important for property owners, builders and businesses.
The order contains different directions dealing with:
Right of Way (ROW);
Highway safety zones;
Change of land use;
Unauthorised structures; and
Licences/NOCs/trade approvals.
Therefore, the legal position of a particular property would depend upon its exact location, land records, highway boundaries, applicable notifications, land-use status, permissions and whether the structure falls within the relevant ROW or safety zone.
The 40-metre and 75-metre direction specifically concerns change of land use through notifications to be issued by State Governments, and should not be inaccurately described as an automatic demolition order applicable to every existing property falling within those distances.
👨⚖️ What Does This Mean for Property Owners and Businesses?
The order is particularly relevant to people who own or operate:
🍽️ Dhabas;
☕ Restaurants and eateries;
🏪 Shops;
🏢 Commercial establishments;
🏗️ Properties adjoining National Highways;
🚛 Truck parking facilities;
🏠 Residential properties; and
📜 Businesses requiring trade licences or NOCs.
Before constructing, expanding or changing the use of a property adjoining a National Highway, the relevant ROW, highway safety zone, land-use restrictions and NHAI/PWD clearance requirements should be carefully examined.
🌐 Wider Constitutional Significance of the Judgment
The order represents an important development in the interpretation of Article 21.
The Supreme Court has connected:
🛣️ Highway Safety
⬇️
🚗 Protection of Commuters
⬇️
❤️ Protection of Human Life
⬇️
🏛️ Article 21
The decision demonstrates that fundamental rights can require the State to take positive preventive measures, particularly where systemic administrative failures create foreseeable risks to human life.
📝 Conclusion
The Supreme Court's order in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India & Others, 2026 INSC 388, is a significant development in Indian constitutional and road-safety jurisprudence.
The Court has issued wide-ranging directions dealing with highway encroachments, illegal parking, commercial structures, land-use restrictions, licences and NOCs, highway surveillance, emergency response, truck lay-bys and accident blackspots.
The most significant constitutional principle emerging from the order is that road safety forms an important component of the State's obligation to protect life and dignity under Article 21.
At the same time, the 40-metre residential and 75-metre commercial directions should be read carefully. The Supreme Court directed State Governments to issue notifications prohibiting change of land use within those distances from the midpoint of National Highways, consistent with IRC norms.
The order ultimately reinforces a powerful constitutional principle:
❤️ Human life cannot be sacrificed because of administrative negligence, unsafe infrastructure or regulatory failure.
For citizens, property owners, businesses, local authorities and legal professionals, this order is likely to become an important reference point in disputes concerning National Highway encroachments, highway-side commercial establishments, road safety and the constitutional right to life under Article 21.