The Meghalaya High Court has issued urgent safety directives to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Shillong-Dawki Highway, which leads to Bangladesh, describing the ongoing repair work as “shabby and unscientific.”
Court’s Observations on Road Conditions
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed after a massive boulder crushed a vehicle on the stretch, killing its occupants. The bench held the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) and the contractor responsible for endangering lives and escalating costs.
Advocate General A Kumar and Deputy Solicitor General of India Dr N Mozika informed the court that compensation of Rs 4 lakh and Rs 6 lakh, as directed in the April 29 order, had been credited to the accounts of the legal heirs of the deceased.
Amicus Curiae Report Highlights Dangers
Amicus Curiae Philemon Nongbri, who inspected the road on May 14, submitted a report with photographs describing the surface as “in a deplorable condition.” The report stated that the carriageway was “covered with loose mud and uncleared debris, rendering it barely motorable and extremely dangerous.” It also flagged an “absolute lack of proper, sturdy barricades” between live traffic and deep drops.
“The contractor has erected thin wooden sticks tied together with safety tape which offers absolutely no physical restraint or protection for vehicles,” the report said. It also cited missing reflectors, delineators, and “men at work” signs despite heavy fog and excavators operating during traffic hours, adding that the lapses violated Sections 9.4.1 and 9.4.2 of the Hill Road Manual.
NHIDCL’s Own Report Admits Flaws
NHIDCL filed its own report along with a site assessment by empanelled hill road expert Ashish D Gharpure. He said that “due to inadequate right-of-way provision and unattended slope stability aspect,” slope cutting works were creating “hazardous conditions either affecting the road user or the habitat/structure living/constructed on the borderline/adjacent to ROW.”
Gharpure criticized a “very lame and non-engineering explanation” for steep cuts and warned that continuing “un-engineered cut” would lead “not only to catastrophic damage but also loss of human life and eventual cost of construction which is multifold to initial provision.”
The court observed that it was “evident that the work is not being done as is required to be done and is being done in a shabby and unscientific manner by the contractor, thereby endangering human life and increase in the cost of construction.” It added, “For this, prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is not only the contractor, but also the NHIDCL, who is responsible.”
Defective DPR and Contractor Selection
Dr Mozika submitted that “it appears that the DPR itself was defective,” and the NHIDCL report admitted the contractor was chosen on financial capability, “and not whether he was an expert in constructing roads in the hills.”
Court’s Directives for Safety Measures
The bench directed authorities to immediately replace makeshift flex banners with standardized retro-reflecting signs as per IRC guidelines, install strong physical barricades with reflectors in poor-visibility zones, clear loose mud to restore the carriageway, and deploy trained flagmen with communication devices and high-visibility gear near heavy machinery.
The court also directed the state and NHIDCL’s top officers to meet and ensure the work is completed “at the earliest, without compromising on the safety of people and quality of work.”
Advocate General Kumar was directed to ensure police deployment for smooth traffic, and the court sought instructions on stationing ambulances at strategic locations for “immediate medical help… in the event there is an untoward incident.”
The matter is listed next on June 3, 2026.
