Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the mandatory use of FASTag at toll plazas on national highways noting that switching to a digital system of toll payment would ensure efficient, seamless travel, reduce congestion at toll plazas, and minimize fuel consumption and pollution.

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenged the policy of charging double toll fees for vehicles without FASTag.

The court ruled that the decision, taken by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under directions from the Union government, is neither arbitrary nor violative of fundamental rights.

The PIL was filed by Arjun Khanapure, who contended that converting all cash lanes into FASTag-exclusive lanes was illegal and sought a directive to keep at least one hybrid lane allowing cash payments. His counsel, Uday Warunjikar, argued that the FASTag implementation lacked proper infrastructure, causing hardship to commuters, particularly those unfamiliar with digital transactions.

He also claimed that the mandatory use of FASTag and the imposition of double toll fees for non-users violated citizens’ right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.

However, the bench dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the FASTag system was introduced in 2014 and implemented gradually over the years. The court observed that it aimed to ensure efficient, seamless travel, reduce congestion at toll plazas, and minimize fuel consumption and pollution. It noted that multiple avenues were provided for commuters to obtain and recharge FASTags, including mobile apps, banks, petrol pumps, and e-commerce platforms.

State Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the NHAI, defended the policy, stating that it was a well-thought-out decision to encourage digital transactions and streamline toll collection. He argued that the imposition of double toll fees on vehicles entering FASTag lanes without the tag was not a penalty but a measure provided under Rule 6(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

The court emphasized that policy decisions should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary or violate fundamental rights. It stated that judicial review of policy matters is limited and should be exercised only in exceptional cases. The bench further observed that the use of mobile phones is widespread, even in smaller cities, making it unreasonable to assume that the public cannot adapt to FASTag.

“The introduction of FASTag is a policy decision aimed at providing efficient and seamless road travel. The system, implemented in phases since 2014, is here to stay,” the court ruled.

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that non-FASTag users were being penalized, the court clarified that the double fee requirement was a legitimate charge under the rules and not a fine. It concluded that the policy was rational, non-arbitrary, and in the larger public interest.