Expert Report on Road Safety Cannot Be Overridden by Court’s Opinion: Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Reopening of Median Cut on NH-44

“Decision has been taken based on an expert report and this Court cannot substitute its opinion qua the expert report.” – High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation  , which sought a direction to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for reopening a closed median cut on NH-44, located in front of Gram Khari, Baijpur Ramgarh – Jhansi Road.

The Court ruled that once a decision is made based on an expert road safety audit, the judiciary cannot intervene to override such technical recommendations merely on grounds of public inconvenience, thereby reaffirming the primacy of expert opinion in matters of road infrastructure and safety.

One and a Half Kilometres on a National Highway is Not “Too Excessive”

"Not having a median cut just in front of the entrance of the village is essentially to the welfare of the villagers as the same necessarily would result in accident" – Court affirms importance of traffic safety over local convenience

The petitioner, Ashok Puri, represented by Advocates Anil Kumar Dubey and Ram Milan Dwivedi, filed the PIL invoking public interest jurisdiction. The plea was directed against Respondents Nos. 2 & 3, primarily NHAI, and sought to reopen a median cut that was earlier present on NH-44 in front of a village but was later closed by the authorities.

According to the petitioner, the closure of the cut was causing undue hardship and inconvenience to the commuters and villagers, who were now compelled to travel an additional 1.5 kilometers to access the other available median cut.

However, the NHAI, represented by Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI), Chief Standing Counsel (CSC), and Advocate Pranjal Mehrotra, opposed the plea, arguing that the median was closed pursuant to a Road Safety Audit.

The central issue before the Court was whether the closure of the median cut could be considered arbitrary or disproportionate, especially in light of local inconvenience.

The Court categorically refused to entertain the petition and emphasized that:

“The decision has been taken based on an expert report and this Court cannot substitute its opinion qua the expert report.”

The Road Safety Audit Firm had assessed the situation and recommended closure of the cut due to safety concerns, especially since the location was in front of a retail outlet and the existing cut was found to be dangerous and violative of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways guidelines.

The petitioner's argument about the hardship of having to travel an extra 1.5 km was dismissed by the Court, which observed:

“On a National Highway, a distance of one and half kilometer cannot be said to be too excessive for this Court to interfere.”

The Court further added that public safety cannot be compromised for the sake of mere convenience, stating that:

“Not having a median cut just in front of the entrance of the village essentially is to the welfare of the villagers as the same necessarily would result in accident.”

Expert Opinion Prevails: The Court held that technical recommendations based on a professional road safety audit are not to be second-guessed by judicial forums unless there is a clear case of mala fide or gross unreasonableness, which was not found in this case.

Welfare Through Restriction: Interestingly, the Court interpreted the closure as a measure of welfare, rather than an act of inconvenience. It reiterated that restricting direct entry from villages onto highways may actually prevent accidents, particularly where earlier incidents have occurred.

Public Convenience vs. Public Safety: The judgment draws a clear jurisprudential line between inconvenience and hazard, asserting that commuter convenience cannot override collective safety, especially on National Highways, which are meant for high-speed traffic and follow strict design and safety protocols.

The Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of this PIL reiterates the limited scope of judicial review in matters involving technical infrastructure planning when done on the basis of expert evaluations. The Court favored the constitutional principle of public safety and administrative prudence, thereby laying down that judicial intervention is not warranted unless the decision is patently illegal, arbitrary, or devoid of any rational basis.

Date of Decision: September 4, 2025