
'Why Step Out So Early?' Highway Body's Shocker After 40-Hour Jam, 3 Deaths
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), entrusted with maintaining the country's road network, stunned many in court this week with a remark that revealed more about institutional apathy than it did about accountability.
"Why do people even leave home so early without any work?"
This was the question posed by NHAI's lawyer in response to a 40-hour traffic jam on the Indore-Dewas highway, a jam that left three dead.
The comment, casually made in open court, has sparked outrage and disbelief. For the families who lost their loved ones, it wasn't just insensitive - it was cruel.
Three Lives Lost, Thousands Stranded
The jam began Friday and stretched for 8 kilometers, trapping over 4,000 vehicles. Among the dead were Kamal Panchal (62) from Indore - died of a heart attack after suffocating in the heat while stuck in traffic for over an hour. Balram Patel (55) from Shujalpur and Sandeep Patel (32) from Gari Pipalya village.
Sumit Patel, Balram's nephew, was furious: "No one has the time to roam the streets without reason. We were on the road trying to save a life - my uncle's. If an NHAI official had been stuck like us, they'd understand the trauma."
The traffic jam lasted 40 hours
The jam and resulting deaths prompted advocate Anand Adhikari from Dewas to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Ironically, he too was stuck in the same jam while attempting to reach Indore. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, heard the case on Monday.
The court made multiple agencies party to the case, including: NHAI (Delhi and Indore offices), The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, The Indore Collector, Indore Police Commissioner, The road construction company and Indore Dewas Tollways Ltd.
The court noted that it had already ordered the completion of a diversion road within four weeks back in September. But the road remains unfinished. NHAI blamed a 10-day crusher unit strike, yet had previously requested three to four months to complete the work. The court appeared unimpressed, questioning the logic behind such delays.
Senior Advocate Girish Patwardhan, representing the petitioner, stated, "The High Court has issued notices to NHAI, the Indore Police Commissioner, and the Indore Collector, directing them to submit their replies within one week. Additionally, the court has ordered that the toll company and the road construction company be made parties to the case. NHAI has been instructed to issue notices to the road contractor and the toll operator."
He further added: "The High Court has specifically made NHAI, Indore-Dewas Toll Bridge Company, the construction firm, the Police Commissioner, and the Collector as respondents, asking them to respond within a week."
The court raised a pointed question: "In September, it was claimed that the diversion road would be completed in four weeks. Why hasn't it been done yet?"
In response, NHAI cited a strike by crusher units as the reason for the delay.
On NHAI's argument in court - 'Why do people leave their homes without any work?', Patwardhan said: "This comment was indeed made in court. The Honourable Court responded that such reasoning is unacceptable, as it would mean that ordinary citizens could no longer safely step out of their homes. The court did not take this argument seriously."
Indore Collector Ashish Singh conducted a field inspection and stated that the service road constructed by NHAI was too weak to handle the pressure of heavy vehicles. The road gave way, causing traffic to come to a halt. The court has set July 7 as the date for the next hearing and asked all parties to file written responses.
But the real question remains: Will someone else die the next time they step out without "a valid reason"? Or will NHAI begin issuing "permission slips" for citizens to travel on Indian roads?

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Renukaswamy murder case: SC pulls up high court over bail to Darshan; calls ruling a 'perverse exercise of discretion'
File photos NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the Karnataka high court's handling of the Renukaswamy murder case, in which actor and prime accused Darshan was granted bail. Justice JB Pardiwala questioned whether this is a common practice, where bail orders effectively resemble judgments of acquittal, suggesting a questionable use of judicial discretion. During the hearing of the Karnataka government's plea, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Darshan, Justice Pardiwala observed that the way the Karnataka high court dealt with the bail application was "a question of perverse prima facie exercise of discretion". "In a lighter vein, don't you think the High Court has basically dictated an order acquittal of all seven? There are ways and ways of assigning reasons. The manner in which the High Court has dictated the order, very sorry to say, but does the High Court dictate same type of orders in all bail applications?" Justice Pardiwala was quoted as observing by Live Law. He further said: "What is troubling us is the approach of the High Court! Look at the manner in which bail application is [dealt] and in the last, and says he says grounds of arrest not assigned in 302 matter?! That is the understanding of the learned judge? And that too from the High Court? We can understand a session judge committing such mistakes. A High Court judge committing such a mistake?" Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Darshan, argued that the high court's findings were preliminary and were not going to bind the trial. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Filipinos should get this large benefit! Read More Undo "It is a question of perverse prima facie exercise of discretion. We are trying to examine, while exercising discretion, has the high court applied its mind judiciously? That's a matter of concern," Justice Pardiwala responded to Dave. Last year in December the high court granted bail to Darshan Toogudeep Srinivas, listed as accused number 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case. Bail was also granted to co-accused Pavithra Gowda (accused number 1), Nagaraju, Anu Kumar, Lakshman, Jagadeesh alias Jagga, and R Pradoosh Rao. What's the case? Renukaswamy, a medical shop employee from Chitradurga, was allegedly abducted and killed on June 8 at a shed in Pattanagere, within the RR Nagar police limits of Bengaluru. The crime surfaced the following day when a security guard at a nearby apartment complex discovered the body. According to the prosecution, the accused detained Renukaswamy in the shed, subjected him to torture, and then murdered him before dumping his body in a storm-water drain.


News18
2 hours ago
- News18
12-Year-Old Girl Demands 1 Cr From Father. CJI Gavai Warns Mother: 'You Are Spoiling Her Mind'
The CJI's statement came after the child demanded Rs 1 crore from her father if he wanted her to stay with him. 'You are unnecessarily dragging your child and spoiling her mind," said Chief Justice of India BR Gavai as he warned the mother of a 12-year-old girl, stating that this would 'come back" to her someday while he was hearing a child custody case. The CJI's statement came after the child demanded Rs 1 crore from her father if he wanted her to stay with him. In addition to this, the court also noted that the child even attacked her father with a stick. Senior Advocate PR Patwalia, appearing for the father, informed the court that the couple had a matrimonial dispute, after which the district court granted the child's custody to the father. The mother's challenge to the order is pending before the High Court, but she has not handed over the child's custody, NDTV reported. Meanwhile, the high court rejected the father's contempt case, and therefore, he has approached the top court. The apex court bench, comprising of CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, were informed that in September last year, the Supreme Court asked the district legal services authority to appoint a paralegal volunteer to ensure that the father's visitation rights are implemented. 'Now, kindly see what happened yesterday. Only yesterday, again the girl has declined to come with me. And she says that 'you are harassing my mother, you have filed a contempt (case), you please give Rs 1 crore, otherwise I will not go," Patwali said, adding, 'On top of that, in the school records, the mother has deleted the name of the father." Patwari further urged the court that 'punishing the mother is not going to achieve anything" and sought mediation in the matter. Meanwhile, when the mother's counsel, Anubha Agrawal, said she was open to mediation, Chief Justice Gavai told the mother, 'You are unnecessarily dragging your child, you are spoiling the career of your child, you are spoiling her mind. This will come back someday." The court further referred the matter to a mediator after both sides agreed, considering that the dispute is a matrimonial dispute. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
2006 Mumbai Train Blasts: Supreme Court Stays HC Order, But Frees Accused Stay Out of Jail
/ Jul 24, 2025, 01:44PM IST In a major development, the Supreme Court has stayed the Bombay High Court's recent order acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. The top court intervened after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta cautioned that the High Court verdict could set a damaging precedent for other cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court ruling will not be treated as precedent. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had set aside the 2015 trial court verdict, citing lack of evidence, invalid confessions, and failure of the prosecution to establish guilt.#supremecourt #bombayhighcourt #mumbaitrainblasts #711case #mocca #terroracquittals #indiancourts #711verdict #justiceforvictims #scstayorder