Courts Can't Strike Down Policy Merely If A Different Policy Would’ve Been Fairer Or Wiser: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Double Fee For Non-FASTag Vehicles
The Bombay High Court upheld the validity of the Circulars issued by the NHAI whereby commuters without FASTag are mandatorily required to pay double the toll fees instead of the actual toll fees.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the double toll fee for non-FASTag vehicles while holding that the Courts are not inclined to strike down a policy merely because a different policy would have been fairer or wiser.
The Court upheld the validity of the Circulars issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under the directions of the Union of India whereby commuters without FASTag are mandatorily required to pay double the toll fees instead of the actual toll fees, by way of penalty. The PIL sought to quash the circulars contending that the policy was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of due process of law and also sought a directive to keep at least one lane as a hybrid lane to allow cash payments or any other modes to the commuters to pay the toll fees.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre held, “It is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular policy is wise or a better public policy could have been evolved. Nor are the Courts are inclined to strike down the policy merely because it is urged by the Petitioner that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.”
Advocate Uday Warunjikar appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate R.V. Govilkar and Advocate General Birendra Saraf represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner challenged the conversion of all toll lanes into FASTag-exclusive lanes, arguing that it left no option for cash payments, thereby unfairly impacting commuters who were unable or unwilling to use FASTag.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that the introduction of FASTag was a policy decision aimed at ensuring efficient and seamless toll collection, reducing congestion, and minimising fuel wastage. It noted that the system had been introduced in a phased manner since 2014, with sufficient time given to the public to transition. The Court further pointed out that vehicles without FASTag were not being denied passage but were only required to pay double the fee as per the rules, which was a charge and not a penalty.
“Courts are expected to be very slow to interfere in policy decisions, which are best left to the State Authority and their wisdom and unless and until the said decision is patently arbitrary and/or not in larger public interest, no indulgence shall be shown,” the Bench remarked.
The Court stated, “The contention of the Petitioner that the mandate of using FASTag violates fundamental right of citizens, is also an argument to be just referred to be rejected, as we find that the apprehension of the Petitioner that if a vehicle is not fitted with FASTag, it shall not be allowed to cross the toll plaza is an erroneous assumption.”
“Once the policy of use of FASTag on the National Highways has been rolled out, which was meticulously planned by the Respondent No.1 and implemented phase wise by the Respondent No.2, it is expected to cover each and every individual/vehicle, which intend to use the Highway of part of Highway and has to be a part of the scheme or else, he will have to be left stranded on the road or else face the provision which subject him to double rate of fee, which he would have otherwise required to pay,” the Bench emphasised.
Consequently, the Court held, “It is difficult to fathom that the public in India is not well equipped to handle the FASTag and we find the submission of Dr.Warunjikar in that regard to be totally baseless. At present, there is rarely any person in this country, specially in cities like Mumbai, Pune, who do not use a mobile phone and when the mobiles are used, the users are also acquainted with the procedure of its recharge and, though, it is not expected that the person should be thoroughly techno-savvy for use of FASTag as it is simple procedure, which could also be worked off-line and in the backdrop of the avowed object with which the FASTag is introduced, we do not see any reason why we should interfere in the policy decision.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL.
Cause Title: Arjun Raju Khanapure v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11931-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Uday Warunjikar, Vijaykumar B. Dighe and Amol Ohal
Respondents: Senior Advocate R.V. Govilkar; Advocate General Birendra Saraf; Advocates D.P. Singh, Shaba Khan, Vaibhav Charalwar, Prashant Mishra, Bharat Jadhav, Purva Birla, Darshil Shah, Sahil Mate and Pradumna Sharma
