When a large state like Gujarat lags while tiny Haryana leads in toll collection, this is not a mere coincidence; it is a sign of policy imbalance.
A response to a question in the Lok Sabha revealed a truth that the people of Haryana have been feeling for years—the burden of increasing toll charges, irregular infrastructure, and barriers every few kilometers. This government data presented to Parliament is not just a statistic, but raises questions about the functioning of the entire system, its priorities, and its policy-making mindset. The report revealed that Haryana has the highest per capita toll collection in the country—₹917.1 per citizen, ranking first in India.
This fact is surprising because Haryana’s geographical size, population, route length, and industrial status are smaller than Gujarat on many levels. Gujarat is three times larger than Haryana, yet toll collections there are lower than in Haryana. This difference reflects not just a difference in area, but also a difference in administrative vision, policy management, and assessment of public interest.
When it’s revealed that Gujarat has a total of 62 toll plazas, while Haryana has 75, the first question that arises is: why is this small state burdened with such high toll collections? What constraints or priorities are driving Haryana’s toll plaza density so much higher than in other states? The number of toll plazas isn’t a problem in itself; the problem arises when rules are not followed, distance standards are violated, and the system’s goal is to extract the maximum amount from the public purse.
According to National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) regulations, the minimum distance between two toll plazas should be 60 kilometers. This rule was enacted to avoid unnecessary burden on the public and ensure equitable use of road facilities. However, Haryana is the only state in the country where the average distance between two toll plazas is 45 kilometers, 25% less than the established standard.
This discrepancy isn’t a mere statistical maneuver, but rather points to a deeper structural flaw. Haryana certainly has a network of roads, but is the strategy of tolling every road in line with public convenience? Or has this scheme become a model of economic recovery that continues to burden the public’s pockets?
Toll plazas play a dual role for any state—raising financial resources and contributing to road construction and maintenance. But when toll revenue becomes so high that people have to pay every 40–50 kilometers before traveling, this system becomes questionable. In this context, comparing Haryana to Gujarat further highlights the policy inconsistency. Gujarat has a larger area, more industrial activity, and a much longer highway length, yet the number of tolls is lower. This indicates that planning is balanced, the average distance traveled is close to standard, and there is relatively less pressure on the public.
The people of Haryana are facing a double whammy—rising travel costs, and the frequency of toll payments. This is leading to growing discontent among traders, farmers, private vehicle drivers, and daily commuters in the state. Toll plazas abound in almost every direction in every district connected to Delhi-NCR—Sonipat, Jhajjar, Gurugram, Faridabad, Palwal, and Rohtak. The situation is such that a person crosses three to five toll plazas in every 150–200 km of travel. This is not just an inconvenience, but a significant financial loss, impacting the state’s mobility and economic efficiency in the long run.
The question also arises: where is this exorbitant collection ultimately being used? Are Haryana’s roads, flyovers, safety, and road quality as good as the exorbitant collection? Is the public getting a fair return on their money? It’s often seen that many roads remain under construction, work slows down in many places, and facilities fall short of expectations in many places. If collections are so high, then facilities should be of the same standard. But the ground reality doesn’t support this claim.
Another serious concern regarding toll collection is that tolls every few kilometers increase logistics costs. When additional tolls are imposed on cargo trucks, agricultural products, and industrial materials, the cost ultimately reaches the average consumer, increasing inflation. Thus, tolls burden not only commuters but the entire economic structure. Haryana is recognized as a leading state in both agriculture and industry. Therefore, excessive toll density slows down business activity and weakens the state’s competitiveness.
If the country’s major states can maintain a balance of toll distances as per policy, why can’t Haryana? This question isn’t just about numbers, it’s about intention. Was the placement truly in accordance with regulations? Was there a review? Did the state government communicate with the central government on this issue? Did local representatives raise this issue regularly? The public’s questions will only be answered if policymakers take this issue seriously.
Today, there is a need for the state and central government to jointly undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation of Haryana’s toll structure. In a state where the average distance is 45 km, restructuring is essential in accordance with regulations. Furthermore, such high per capita charges clearly indicate that the system’s priorities need to be reformed. The public is not a machine that can be turned on its head by inserting a toll coin; they are taxpayers, demand convenience, and deserve transparency.
Ultimately, the system should work in the public’s interest, not force the public to work in the system’s interest. This imbalance in toll payments in Haryana isn’t just an economic issue; it’s a reflection of the government’s priorities. Now is the time to correct this imbalance—so that roads become a vehicle for development, not a burden.
