Thane Municipal Corporation To Bombay High Court: Not Potholes But Rash Driving Causing Accidents
In a claim that is likely to infuriate daily commuters, the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) has officially absolved itself of blame regarding road accidents in the region.
In an affidavit submitted to the Bombay High Court on February 4, 2026, the civic body asserted that several fatal accidents reported in the city were caused not by the notorious potholes that plague Thane’s roads, but by "rash and negligent driving."
This defense comes in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and notices issued by the High Court following reports of 18 deaths allegedly linked to poor road conditions in the latter half of 2025.
The affidavit, filed by the City Engineer of TMC, relies heavily on the text of First Information Reports (FIRs) filed by the police to substantiate its claims. The corporation cited specific incidents to bolster its argument. For instance, referring to a fatal accident on July 13, 2025, the TMC stated that the police FIR explicitly blamed the "negligence of the rider" rather than the road condition.
Similarly, regarding an accident on October 21, 2025, where a truck rammed into a motorcycle killing the pillion rider near Vijay Garden, Kasarvadavali, the TMC argued that the FIR attributed the crash to the "rash and negligent driving of the truck driver." The civic body’s stance is legally technical but socially controversial: if the police report says "rash driving" (a standard clause in almost all accident FIRs), the municipality claims the condition of the road is irrelevant.
To further insulate itself from liability, the TMC had constituted a "Compensation Committee" as per court orders. This committee, which includes the municipal commissioner and legal officials, reviewed the accidents to decide if compensation was due to the victims' families. Unsurprisingly, in the cases reviewed so far, the committee concluded that the roads were in "good condition" at the time of the accidents.
This internal review process raises questions about conflict of interest. When the agency responsible for maintaining the roads is also the agency verifying their condition post-accident, the findings are bound to be viewed with skepticism by the public. The affidavit claims that reports from the PWD and police supported the conclusion that the roads were fine, essentially erasing the "pothole theory" from the official record.
For anyone who drives through Thane - particularly along the Ghodbunder Road or near the Wagle Estate area - the TMC’s affidavit might seem like it describes a different city entirely. Thane residents have long protested against the crater-sized potholes that emerge every monsoon and often persist well into the winter. The disconnect between the official stance ("the road was good") and the commuter's lived experience is stark.
Often, what is recorded as "rash driving" or "losing control" is actually a driver swerving to avoid a pothole or losing balance on an uneven paver-block surface. By focusing strictly on the final act of the collision rather than the environmental factors that caused it, the civic body effectively shifts the burden of safety entirely onto the motorist.
This defense strategy by the TMC sets a worrying precedent. If civic bodies can successfully use standard police FIR templates - which almost always charge drivers under IPC sections for rash driving - to dodge liability for infrastructure failure, it makes it nearly impossible for victims to claim compensation for civic negligence.
The Bombay High Court had previously warned authorities that unregulated road works were "an invitation to accidents." However, with this affidavit, the TMC has made its position clear: the invitation might be there, but if you accept it and crash, it’s your fault.
This development puts the spotlight back on the urgent need for forensic accident investigation in India. Until accidents are investigated for road engineering faults and not just driver error, civic bodies will continue to hide behind the "rash driving" clause, leaving the tax-paying motorist to navigate the craters at their own risk.