Agartala | September 9, 2026

The Tripura High Court has stepped up judicial scrutiny of the condition of two important national highways in the State, directing a series of measures concerning repair, maintenance, technical assessment and an inquiry into allegations surrounding the execution of certain highway projects.

The directions were issued on September 8, 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit in W.P.(C)(PIL) No. 06 of 2026, Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India & Ors.

The PIL was registered by the High Court on July 7, 2026, following newspaper reports concerning the condition of portions of NH-108B and NH-208 and concerns relating to road safety and connectivity. The Court noted the importance of these highways, particularly for areas where alternative railway connectivity is not available.

During the proceedings, material placed before the Court included an inspection report prepared by the District Legal Services Authority, Khowai. The inspection covered portions of both highways and recorded problems including potholes, pavement distress, drainage deficiencies, waterlogging and other road-safety concerns.

The Court examined these conditions in the context of the responsibility of the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) for development and maintenance of the concerned highway stretches.

The Bench also considered the progress of certain ongoing works and the condition of stretches that had already undergone construction.

One of the significant directions concerns an inquiry by the Union Government into allegations relating to contractor selection, supervision and the quality of construction materials.

The Court has directed the Union Government to examine whether any irregularity or impropriety occurred in the selection of contractors and whether there was any collusion between officials and EPC contractors resulting in deterioration of the roads.

However, the direction is an order for investigation and verification. It does not amount to a judicial finding that any particular officer, contractor or agency has committed corruption.

The Court has directed that appropriate civil or criminal action may follow if the inquiry establishes any wrongdoing.

The High Court has also put the repair and maintenance work under continuing judicial scrutiny.

NHIDCL has been directed to submit bi-weekly progress reports concerning the identified highway stretches. The purpose is to enable the Court to monitor whether corrective measures are actually progressing and whether the affected roads are being brought back to a safe and motorable condition.

The Court has also directed the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) to undertake an independent engineering audit after completion of the repair work. The audit report is to be submitted to the High Court in a sealed cover by January 30, 2027.

The Bench also examined the progress of works on parts of NH-108B and NH-208, including projects where substantial work remained incomplete or where road defects had emerged after construction.

Particular attention was drawn to the Mohanpur–Hezamara–Subalsingh stretch of NH-108B, where the Court considered the reported progress of the project and the circumstances surrounding delays.

The Court’s examination included questions relating to the effectiveness of supervision, contractual compliance and the steps taken to address deficiencies.

The judgment also discusses the condition of stretches where defects reportedly appeared after completion of construction, raising broader questions about quality control and maintenance.

Beyond the individual road stretches, the order raises an important institutional issue: how effectively national highway projects are being monitored after contracts are awarded.

The Court observed that engaging EPC contractors does not, by itself, remove the responsibility of the highway authority to ensure that roads under its control remain safe for users.

This aspect could have significance beyond the present case, particularly because highway projects involve substantial public expenditure and directly affect public safety and connectivity.

The High Court has directed the State Government to examine the possibility of appropriate civil and criminal proceedings, depending upon the facts and material available concerning the concerned agencies and contractors.

Again, the direction does not itself establish liability. Any such proceedings would necessarily depend upon the outcome of the relevant inquiry and the evidence available.

The Bench has also raised concerns regarding the broader functioning of agencies involved in national highway development and maintenance and called for consideration of a systemic audit of the functioning of NHAI and NHIDCL.

The observation places the Tripura highway issue within a larger discussion concerning construction quality, contractual supervision, maintenance and accountability in major public infrastructure projects.

The case remains pending before the Tripura High Court and is scheduled to be taken up again on September 22, 2026. The subsequent proceedings are likely to provide further clarity on the progress of repairs, the Union Government’s inquiry and the steps being taken by the concerned authorities.

For the moment, the central focus of the proceedings remains road safety, restoration of the affected stretches and accountability through institutional and technical review, rather than any final determination of individual wrongdoing.