On the crucial stretch of the Agra–Mumbai National Highway, the Indore–Dewas route became the site of a severe humanitarian and infrastructural crisis when a traffic jam lasting more than 40 hours brought thousands of vehicles to a standstill. The jam stretched nearly eight kilometers, trapping commuters in unbearable heat and leading to the death of three individuals. One of the victims reportedly died from a heart attack, illustrating the grave toll such negligence in infrastructure planning and execution can take on public lives. The cause of the gridlock was traced to ongoing six-lane bridge construction combined with poorly planned service roads and a complete lack of an effective traffic diversion mechanism. These factors collectively caused an unprecedented disruption that paralyzed a major artery of national transport.
Caught in this chaos was advocate Anand Adhikari from Dewas, who subsequently filed a public interest litigation in the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. His petition called for the court to oversee the highway construction project to ensure accountability and timely execution. Responding urgently, the division bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, issued notices to a broad range of responsible entities. These included the Union government, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) offices in Delhi and Indore, the state government, district administration, police authorities, the toll operating company, and the private contractor managing the road project. All were directed to submit written responses within a week, and the court also mandated the continuation of interim traffic diversion arrangements to prevent such incidents from recurring.
However, the courtroom proceedings took an unexpected turn when the NHAI’s legal counsel made a controversial remark that sparked widespread public outrage. During the hearing, the lawyer questioned the rationale behind people leaving their homes early without a purpose, implying that the public bore part of the blame for the situation. Her comment, “Why do people even leave home so early without any work?” was met with laughter in court but drew intense backlash when clips of the exchange circulated on social media. Many viewed it as an insensitive and callous dismissal of the real suffering experienced by commuters—especially the families of the deceased.
In response to the backlash, the NHAI quickly issued a public clarification stating that the lawyer’s comment did not reflect the organization’s official stance. It confirmed that a show-cause notice had been served to the legal counsel for making such a statement in court. Despite this effort to control the damage, the comment had already deeply offended the public. Relatives of the victims strongly criticized the remark, with one nephew of a deceased man stating that no one ventures out "for fun." He emphasized that his uncle was being rushed for medical help and died due to the avoidable delay. Others questioned the empathy and responsibility of officials who had not experienced the same ordeal themselves.
The High Court also highlighted broader accountability issues. It recalled that, in an earlier order passed in September, it had instructed the NHAI to complete a proper diversion route within four weeks. That directive had not been fulfilled. The NHAI had cited a crusher unit strike as the reason for the delay. However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation, noting that even longer deadlines given earlier had not resulted in visible progress. The situation, in the court's view, revealed systemic inefficiency and disregard for public inconvenience.
Further assessments from the local administration added weight to the court's concerns. The Indore District Collector reported that the temporary service road constructed by the NHAI was not capable of supporting the volume and weight of traffic it received. This structural weakness directly contributed to the road’s collapse, which in turn led to the complete immobilization of traffic and, ultimately, the fatalities.
Taking into account the seriousness of the event and the consequences it had on the public, the High Court scheduled a follow-up hearing. It reiterated that interim diversion arrangements must stay in place until a more permanent and reliable solution is implemented. The bench emphasized that further infrastructure development on such vital highways must be accompanied by strict accountability and a fully functional traffic management strategy. The court's firm response reflects a growing judicial intolerance for administrative negligence that puts lives at risk and hampers national mobility.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.