Mumbai, India — The Bombay High Court is scrutinizing the accountability of Public Works Department (PWD) officials amid ongoing issues related to road safety on a key stretch of National Highway 17, now designated NH66. This inquiry arises in the context of a First Information Report (FIR) filed against workers of a road construction firm, which has been linked to a significant number of accidents and fatalities in Maharashtra.
During a recent hearing, Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil instructed the Raigad police to refrain from filing any charges against the accused employees of the road construction company without court approval. The FIR was initiated by the National Highway Authority, alleging negligence on the part of the project’s management, including its coordinator, general manager, and director. The authority pointed to inadequate safety measures like missing diversion boards and numerous potholes as contributing factors to the over 170 accidents reported since 2020, resulting in 17 deaths and injuries to more than 200 individuals.
The court raised pointed questions regarding the assignment of liability, particularly questioning the lack of accountability directed toward PWD officials. “Why should the contractor be solely responsible for every accident? What about the PWD officers who have not fulfilled their supervisory role?” the justices asked, highlighting the complexity of vicarious liability in this context.
The Additional Public Prosecutor requested additional time to gather instructions, while Advocate Karan Kadam, representing the petitioners, elaborated on the challenges encountered since the contract was awarded in 2017. Kadam emphasized that ongoing complications have led to significant delays in project completion.
The situation escalated in 2024 when the FIR was expanded to include allegations against the company’s employees, contending that they bore responsibility for all accidental deaths from 2020 onwards. Kadam described this as an “absurd situation,” noting that the initial toll had risen from 17 to a staggering 97 fatalities over time.
The petition further argued that the project experienced various initial challenges, asserting that failing to meet contractual deadlines should not be subject to criminal charges. “Delays in fulfilling a commercial contract, regardless of their reasons, should not lead to criminal liability,” the petition asserted, arguing that such an approach may be misused for extortion and blame-shifting.
As the hearing concluded, the high court permitted the investigation to proceed but made it explicit that any charges filed must await judicial consent, marking a significant moment in this ongoing legal battle. The discussions surrounding shared accountability in infrastructure management underscore broader implications for road safety and administrative responsibility in India.