Can I sue the government for an accident caused by a pothole in India?

Yes. Under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, the government can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its servants, including negligence in road maintenance. Courts have recognized this liability in several cases, especially where pothole accidents have led to serious injury or death. Victims or their families can file tort claims seeking compensation from the relevant municipal authority for failing to uphold their road maintenance legal duty.

What legal remedies are available for pothole-related accidents in India?

Victims of accidents caused by potholes may pursue tort claims in civil courts, file writ petitions for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21, or seek compensation under statutes such as the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These remedies provide both constitutional and statutory routes to hold authorities accountable for potholes in Indian roads.

Is there any specific law in India for road accidents due to potholes?

India does not currently have a standalone law addressing pothole accidents. However, courts rely on a combination of constitutional provisions, including Article 300, and other laws like the Motor Vehicles Act, the Fatal Accidents Act, and local municipal corporation rules. Judicial precedents have been instrumental in establishing the State’s tortious liability in such cases.

What are some landmark cases involving pothole-related deaths in India?

Several notable judgments have shaped the legal discourse around pothole-related deaths in India. In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati , the Supreme Court affirmed the State’s tort liability. In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India , the Court highlighted the severe consequences of potholes in India and allowed compensation claims. Suo Motu PIL No. 71 of 2013 by the Bombay High Court recognized that poorly maintained roads violate the right to life. Further, Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashtra and Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin led to judicial directions for pothole repairs and municipal accountability.

Can pothole accidents be considered a violation of fundamental rights?

Yes. The Bombay High Court has ruled that the right to safe and properly maintained roads is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if an accident due to potholes results in injury or death, it can amount to a violation of fundamental rights, giving affected citizens the right to seek legal action for pothole accidents.

What is the tortious liability of the State in these cases?

The State’s tortious liability arises when public officials fail to perform their legal duties—such as maintaining roads—resulting in harm. In the context of potholes in Indian roads, if municipal or State authorities are aware of hazardous conditions and fail to act, the government can be held liable under tort law. Courts have upheld such claims where road maintenance negligence directly led to loss of life or injury.

How do courts determine compensation for pothole-related deaths?

Currently, there is no uniform legal framework in India specifically for compensation in pothole accident cases. Courts evaluate these claims based on facts, precedents, and judicial discretion, often resulting in varying outcomes. The absence of codified standards contributes to inconsistent enforcement, leaving families of victims in uncertainty and prolonged legal battles.

What is the role of municipal authorities in road maintenance liability?

Municipal authorities bear the primary responsibility for maintaining roads in their jurisdiction. When they fail to discharge this duty, especially after prior notice of danger, they may be held liable for resulting accidents caused by potholes. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that municipal authority road negligence can infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights and warrant compensation.

How do other countries handle pothole-related legal claims?

In the United States, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946 enables citizens to sue for government negligence. New York’s “Pothole Law” specifically requires prior written notice of the defect before the city can be held liable. In the United Kingdom, under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 and the Highways Act, 1980, highway authorities are duty-bound to maintain public roads. Citizens can serve formal notices demanding repairs. If ignored, legal action can follow. These laws create structured obligations and define road maintenance legal duty clearly—something India currently lacks.

What reforms are needed in India to improve legal recourse for road negligence?

India needs a codified legal framework that clearly defines the road maintenance duties of public authorities and establishes a time-bound compensation process for pothole accidents. Standardized contractor protocols, regular audits, and accountability measures are essential. The adoption of technology like pothole repair machines in India, along with stricter penalties for negligence and an efficient grievance redressal system, can ensure faster relief and greater public safety.

Pothole Accidents in India: Legal Liability, State Negligence & Article 300

potholes — Pothole Accidents in India: Legal Liability, State Negligence & Article 300

By – Debasmita Goswami and Chandan Kumar

Introduction

Road accidents in India are multi-causal and occur due to factors like human error, poor road condition, environment, and vehicular condition.¹ Potholes in India are a common cause for road accidents. Despite years of awareness, potholes in Indian roads continue to endanger lives. India has recorded around 4,446 pothole accidents in the year 2022².

Potholes account for nearly 0.8 percent of road accidents, 1.2 percent of deaths caused by road accidents, and 0.7 percent of injuries.³ The persistence of Indian potholes reflects both infrastructural and institutional shortcomings. This is primarily attributable to poor quality road construction material, lack of maintenance and timely repairs of roads and negligence of municipal authorities.

The number of deaths caused on account of poor maintenance of the roads in India every year is alarming. In order to curb this menace, mitigation measures have been adopted by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (“MoRTH”) by way of Road Safety Audit (“RSA”), identifying the black spots/ accident spots on the roads etc. However, challenges persist in the implementation of these measures.

Given the rising number of accidents due to potholes, this challenge also undermines India’s commitment to road safety. As part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021-2030, a target has been set for reducing road deaths by 50% by year 2030⁴.

Legal implications of accidents caused by potholes

The municipal authorities/ corporations are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of roads within the municipal limits. The State is liable in law, for the tortious acts of its servants, – for their acts of omission and commission, voluntary and involuntary, and susceptible to claim for damages on account of such acts.⁵ This includes road negligence by municipal authorities resulting in Indian road potholes, which directly contribute to life-threatening conditions for commuters.

Legal action for pothole accidents would arise under the law of torts, particularly when injury or death occurs due to government inaction.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in State of Rajasthan v. Mrs. Vidyavati⁶, observed that the State shall be held liable for its tortious acts and that the ambit of Article 300 would not be limited only to the contractual liabilities⁷. Under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, the State can sue or be sued as a juristic personality⁸. It allows actions to be brought by and against the Government of India or the State Government⁹.

The Supreme Court has recognised the liability of the State for the acts of the public servant in cases where the fundamental rights are being infringed and would also include the tortious acts committed by the public servants.¹⁰

In S. Rajaseekaran Vs. Union of India¹¹ The Supreme Court acknowledged the serious risk to public safety posed by poorly maintained roads, particularly the prevalence of fatal accidents caused by potholes.

The Supreme Court, in its order dated 20.07.2018, noted that municipal authorities, entrusted with the duty of maintaining roads under applicable laws, had failed to discharge their responsibilities effectively, leading to unavoidable loss of life on account of pothole accidents.This legal recognition of the State’s accountability lays the groundwork for victims to seek redress in pothole accident cases under Article 300 of the Constitution of India.

It was noted that in cities such as Mumbai and Bengaluru, a significant number of accidents take place due to potholes, causing immense distress to the affected families. The Supreme Court also referred to newspaper reports indicating that deaths caused by pothole accidents had surpassed those resulting from terrorist attacks, underscoring the gravity of the situation.

Given the alarming reality, the Court emphasized that the legal representatives of victims who had lost their lives due to such pothole accidents were entitled to claim compensation as a tortious claim, reinforcing the principle that the State and its agencies bear responsibility for ensuring safe road conditions and may be held accountable for negligence in fulfilling its duties.

Relevant High Court Rulings

The Bombay High Court in its order dated 20.05.2015 in Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 71 of 2013, has observed that right to have properly maintained roads is a part of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in the event of any loss caused due to its violation, the citizens have a right to seek compensation. In the context of potholes in India, these rulings highlight a citizen’s right to safe travel and demand accountability for municipal authority road negligence.

Further, the Bombay High Court in the case of Ruju R Thakker Vs. State of Maharashtra¹² directed the state government to fix issues related to potholes on account of the monsoon in the city of Mumbai. In this regard, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai had prepared a detailed action plan called ‘Pothole Free Mumbai’ to tackle the menace of potholes during the monsoon and long-term measures to get rid of the bad road conditions.¹³

The High Court of Kerala by an Order dated 01.10.2024 in Pauly Vadakkan Vs. Corporation of Cochin WP(C) 34310/ 2019, had cautioned the concerned municipal authorities regarding the poor condition of roadways in the city and ordered them to take stringent actions for repairing the same.¹⁴

Ground Reality and Challenges

While courts have been taking cognizance of the implications of bad road conditions on human lives, this does not appear to be the focus of the municipal authorities.

Poor road conditions and Indian potholes remain a widespread issue across cities and towns in almost all cities, town, semi urban and urban areas causing innumerable accidents every year.

Further, the unduly long time taken by civil courts or tribunals coupled with unempathetic bureaucratic response in court proceedings, to dispose of claims, acts as a deterrent to affected families who need immediate and adequate relief due to loss of family members. This is particularly tragic in cases involving accidents caused by potholes where immediate compensation is essential.

The situation becomes worse if the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family.

Provisions for Compensation

Statutes such as the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855¹⁵ (“FAA”) and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MVA”) provide for compensation to be paid to the family of a person for the loss occasioned to it by death by actionable wrong. Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act for pothole cases or fatal injuries must be expedited to ensure justice.

Section 136-A of the MVA provides for provision of electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety which is to be ensured by the respective State Government.¹⁶

Some municipal corporations have rules or regulations, governing the maintenance of roads and compensation to be provided to the victims. For instance:

Section 232 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020¹⁷ deals with the provision regarding the right to receive compensation owing to any defect in public street.

However, there no standard rules adopted for engagement of contractors for building, repair and maintenance of roads, their periodicity, the technology or materials to be used having regard to local conditions and most importantly, the accountability of employees of the municipal authorities responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of roads in the event of any fatality or serious injury.

Position in some other jurisdictions: United States and United Kingdom

United States – Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946 (FTCA)

In the United States, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946 (“FTCA”) provides legal means for compensating individuals who have suffered personal injury, death, or property loss or damage caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government.¹⁸

Under the FTCA, the federal government acts as a self-insurer, and recognizes liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their official duties.¹⁹

The “Pothole Law” – New York City

The Administrative Code of New York City (commonly known as the “Pothole Law”) has played a significant role in governing the accidents resulting from poorly maintained roads. This provision bars civil actions against the city for property damage, personal injury, or death caused by defective, unsafe, dangerous, or obstructed streets, highways, bridges, wharves, culverts, sidewalks, or crosswalks, including any attachments or encumbrances, unless one of the following requirements is met. New York’s approach places the onus of reporting Indian road potholes on citizens while ensuring state action—a model India can explore –

Written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition, was actually given to the commissioner of transportation or any person or department authorized by the commissioner; or
Where there was previous injury to person or property as a result of the existence of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition, and written notice thereof was given to a city agency; or
There was written acknowledgement from the city of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition, and there was a failure or neglect within fifteen days after the receipt of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of, or the place otherwise made reasonably safe.²⁰

It appears that New York follows a structured approach in determining municipal liability by linking accountability to prior notice and failure to act, thereby placing an obligation on the public to report dangerous road conditions, while allowing the government a reasonable opportunity to address safety hazards before facing legal action.

United Kingdom – Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 & Highways Act, 1980

In United Kingdom, the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (“CPA”)²¹ has played an important role in shaping the law of tort. Like pothole repair laws in the UK, India could benefit from defining the legal duty of road maintenance within municipal frameworks.

Under the CPA the Crown is subject to all those liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be subject in respect of

Torts committed by its servants or agents;
Breach of duties owed to its servants or agents as employer;
Breach of duties attached to ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.

Where any functions are conferred or imposed upon an officer of the Crown as such either by any rule of the Common law or by statute, and that officer commits a tort while performing or purporting to perform those functions, the liabilities of the Crown in respect of the tort shall be such as they would have been if those functions had been conferred or imposed solely by virtue of instructions lawfully given by the crown.

Part IV of the UK Highways Act, 1980 (“Highways Act”)²², casts a duty on highway authorities to maintain highways, and public roads.

In case of non-compliance, any person can serve a notice on the highway authority, asking them to repair the same along with admission of liability for maintenance.

If the highway authority does not admit liability within a month or even after admitting liability fails to repair the highway within six months, the complainant may apply to the Crown Court for an order requiring repairs.

There are some exclusions for the authority where it had taken all reasonable measures to ensure that the highway was not dangerous for traffic.

Notably, mere delegation of maintenance responsibilities to a third party is insufficient to absolve the authority of liability of the highway authority unless it is demonstrated that the authority issued clear and appropriate instructions and that such instructions were duly complied with.

Conclusion

The right to life and one’s personal liberty is probably one of the most fundamental natural rights of any human being. Any grievous hurt to an individual or loss of life due to negligence would fall within the realm of a criminal act under the Indian laws. Accidents due to potholes must be seen not just as infrastructure failures but as breaches of public trust and safety law.

However, the negligence of the responsible officers or employees of municipal authorities causing death or injury due to potholes, are hidden under the guard of institutional failure, without any recourse.

Naturally, the lack of accountability of any specific person results in the general lack of institutional empathy towards such negligent approaches.

India lacks a structured law clearly governing tortious liability for pothole accidents caused by poor road conditions.

While the Constitution of India permits actions against the State for tortious liability under Article 300, and judicial precedents have upheld the duty of municipal and state authorities to maintain roads, there is no legislation that explicitly governs the accountability of government bodies for such accidents.

Courts have relied on a combination of constitutional provisions, tort law principles, specific statutory enactments, and municipal corporation laws to determine liability.

However, the lack of a uniform legal framework results in uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement with respect to determination of liability as well as grant of compensation.

Given the alarming number of accidents and fatalities caused by potholes in India, there is an urgent need for a more structured and codified legal framework akin to those in the United States and United Kingdom. Such a framework should also mandate use of pothole repair products in India and evaluate the role of pothole repair machines in India’s urban road strategy.

Establishing clear statutory obligations for road maintenance on responsible officers, streamlined liability provisions, and a structured compensation mechanism would ensure greater accountability and proactiveness of public authorities to ensure pothole free roads.

FAQs

Can I sue the government for an accident caused by a pothole in India?

Yes. Under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, the government can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its servants, including negligence in road maintenance. Courts have recognized this liability in several cases, especially where pothole accidents have led to serious injury or death. Victims or their families can file tort claims seeking compensation from the relevant municipal authority for failing to uphold their road maintenance legal duty.
What legal remedies are available for pothole-related accidents in India?

Victims of accidents caused by potholes may pursue tort claims in civil courts, file writ petitions for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21, or seek compensation under statutes such as the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These remedies provide both constitutional and statutory routes to hold authorities accountable for potholes in Indian roads.
Is there any specific law in India for road accidents due to potholes?

India does not currently have a standalone law addressing pothole accidents. However, courts rely on a combination of constitutional provisions, including Article 300, and other laws like the Motor Vehicles Act, the Fatal Accidents Act, and local municipal corporation rules. Judicial precedents have been instrumental in establishing the State’s tortious liability in such cases.
What are some landmark cases involving pothole-related deaths in India?

Several notable judgments have shaped the legal discourse around pothole-related deaths in India. In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, the Supreme Court affirmed the State’s tort liability. In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, the Court highlighted the severe consequences of potholes in India and allowed compensation claims. Suo Motu PIL No. 71 of 2013 by the Bombay High Court recognized that poorly maintained roads violate the right to life. Further, Ruju R. Thakker v. State of Maharashtra and Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin led to judicial directions for pothole repairs and municipal accountability.
Can pothole accidents be considered a violation of fundamental rights?

Yes. The Bombay High Court has ruled that the right to safe and properly maintained roads is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, if an accident due to potholes results in injury or death, it can amount to a violation of fundamental rights, giving affected citizens the right to seek legal action for pothole accidents.
What is the tortious liability of the State in these cases?

The State’s tortious liability arises when public officials fail to perform their legal duties—such as maintaining roads—resulting in harm. In the context of potholes in Indian roads, if municipal or State authorities are aware of hazardous conditions and fail to act, the government can be held liable under tort law. Courts have upheld such claims where road maintenance negligence directly led to loss of life or injury.
How do courts determine compensation for pothole-related deaths?

Currently, there is no uniform legal framework in India specifically for compensation in pothole accident cases. Courts evaluate these claims based on facts, precedents, and judicial discretion, often resulting in varying outcomes. The absence of codified standards contributes to inconsistent enforcement, leaving families of victims in uncertainty and prolonged legal battles.
What is the role of municipal authorities in road maintenance liability?

Municipal authorities bear the primary responsibility for maintaining roads in their jurisdiction. When they fail to discharge this duty, especially after prior notice of danger, they may be held liable for resulting accidents caused by potholes. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that municipal authority road negligence can infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights and warrant compensation.
How do other countries handle pothole-related legal claims?

In the United States, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946 enables citizens to sue for government negligence. New York’s “Pothole Law” specifically requires prior written notice of the defect before the city can be held liable.

In the United Kingdom, under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 and the Highways Act, 1980, highway authorities are duty-bound to maintain public roads. Citizens can serve formal notices demanding repairs. If ignored, legal action can follow. These laws create structured obligations and define road maintenance legal duty clearly—something India currently lacks.
What reforms are needed in India to improve legal recourse for road negligence?

India needs a codified legal framework that clearly defines the road maintenance duties of public authorities and establishes a time-bound compensation process for pothole accidents. Standardized contractor protocols, regular audits, and accountability measures are essential. The adoption of technology like pothole repair machines in India, along with stricter penalties for negligence and an efficient grievance redressal system, can ensure faster relief and greater public safety.