Prioritise public safety
THE construction of four-lane highways in Himachal Pradesh — one from Chandigarh to Shimla and the other from Kiratpur Sahib to Manali — has triggered a debate not only about the way these highways should be built, but also about the element of criminal negligence in their construction. Should there be a criminal liability for faulty road construction? The answer is in the affirmative. The caveat of negligence in road construction is often used to shield engineers, the construction company, etc. But what if there is criminal negligence?
Criminal liability for poor infrastructure: The recent floods have turned the spotlight on gaps in infrastructure development, especially four-lane roads in the hills
It’s called criminal negligence when a defendant acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived; this is supposedly a literal definition of being criminally negligent. Should there be a criminal liability for a person or persons discharging duties which they are supposed to have appropriate knowledge of but still fail to do so? Let’s take, for example, a physician or a surgeon doing a procedure negligently on a patient. The law does not protect the doctor and holds him or her accountable for an act of being criminally negligent. Likewise, the driver of a motor vehicle is tried under the provisions of criminal negligence to ensure that adequate safety measures are undertaken.
There are a number of instances across the country where faulty construction of roads and bridges have led to disasters. However, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code were applied only when such disasters had claimed lives. Why cannot such provisions be inbuilt into the systemic structure, ensuring deterrence and more caution in the future? What are the ways in which this can be done?
In July 2020, a bridge, which was inaugurated just a month ago, collapsed in the Gandak river in Bihar. The Morbi bridge tragedy in Gujarat claimed more than 130 lives last year. When a company with no past experience enters the domain of construction of roads and bridges, it leads to disaster and mayhem.
According to a study carried out in international journal Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2,130 bridges, excluding culverts and pedestrian bridges, collapsed during the construction phase itself in India during a 40-year period (1977-2017). This report also pointed out that the average lifespan of a bridge in India is 35 years, whereas the global average is 50. It was stated that apart from poor design and substandard construction material, the reasons for such collapses were lack of maintenance and faulty bidding process with no accountability.
One of the reasons for major road disasters is the massive amount of dishonesty in every process — from tendering to execution. Implementing criminal liability for negligence in road construction will surely act as a deterrent for companies and individuals involved in such projects. Knowing that they could face severe legal consequences if their actions lead to harm or loss of life, they are more likely to exercise greater care and diligence in their work. This, in turn, can drive a culture of accountability and responsibility within the construction industry, leading to improved safety standards and practices.
Public safety is another major reason for holding companies and individuals accountable for criminal negligence in constructing roads and bridges. Infrastructure that is improperly designed, poorly constructed or inadequately maintained can lead to fatal accidents, injuries and loss of assets. It is the responsibility of those involved in infrastructure development to ensure that roads and bridges are built to high standards, following proper engineering practices and adhering to safety regulations. Criminalising negligence in construction sends a clear message that jeopardising public safety will not be tolerated.
Criminalising negligence in infrastructure construction can encourage companies and individuals to adopt better standards and practices. This includes regular inspections, thorough risk assessments and adherence to updated engineering guidelines. It surely fosters a proactive approach to ensuring the safety and quality of infrastructure projects, benefiting society as a whole.
The two four-lane highways as described above, along with some national highways being built in HP, serve as eye-openers. Companies executing the work should be indicted for the following reasons:
1) Mountains are never cut with a vertical slit; they are cut in slopes or terraces. Despite having knowledge of this fact, the road construction work was done with a vertical slit. Both the National Highways Authority of India and the construction companies are liable for prosecution.
2) These mountains are part of the youngest range, with most regions consisting of sedimentary rocks. However, cutting of the mountains was allowed without proper geological studies, if such studies were conducted at all.
3) The water channels have been disturbed, leading to the development of new passages and increasing vulnerability.
4) The entire muck has been dumped along the valley side, disregarding dumping norms. During rains, the muck enters the water ecosystem, causing a cascading effect.
5) The two roads have completely withered away at places, resulting in a huge loss to the economy and the livelihoods of the people.
The decision to proceed with construction despite being familiar with all these issues smacks of deep-rooted connivance, corruption and criminal negligence in operations.
Criminal liability can act as a deterrent, but along with that certain essential documents should always be in the public domain. These include environment impact assessments, public hearing documents and geological studies and their reports. Empowering the people with information about the so-called ‘development process’ is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability.
