Discuss the constitutional and administrative issues arising when the Supreme Court directs a specialized infrastructure body like NHAI to perform welfare functions beyond its core mandate.

Invoking its "complete justice" powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court in November 2025 directed States, municipal bodies, NHAI and PWD to fence public spaces and clear highways of stray animals within eight weeks [2]. NHAI's subsequent plea that it can neither herd cattle nor build shelters [1] exposes deeper faultlines of constitutional propriety and administrative capacity.

Constitutional issues

• Separation of powers: choosing instruments and allocating outlays is an executive function; a judicially fixed obligation costing an estimated ₹7,000 crore [1] effectively reorders budgetary priorities without legislative sanction.
• Ultra vires the parent statute: NHAI's mandate under the NHAI Act is highway development and maintenance; animal custody lies outside it, and it holds no statutory power to impound cattle that remain private property.
• Federalism and devolution: public health, animal welfare and civic functions were devolved to local bodies through the 74th Amendment, and the ABC Rules, 2023 place sterilisation and immunisation on municipalities and panchayats [4]. Shifting the duty to a central agency bypasses this scheme.
• Countervailing ground: highway safety engages Article 21, and NHAI owns and tolls the carriageway — giving the Court a legitimate basis to act.

Administrative issues

• Mandate–capacity mismatch: NHAI's demonstrated competence is engineering — its pilot provides cattle shelters and real-time stray-cattle alerts on selected NH stretches [3] — not pan-India animal management.
• Unfunded mandates: there is no dedicated central fund for stray cattle; assistance is limited to ₹800 per dog and ₹600 per cat for local bodies [4], so duty and finance sit in different hands.
• Diffused accountability: personal liability of Chief Secretaries [2] did not deliver, pushing the Court toward the single asset-owning agency.

The dispute concerns which agency, not whether the problem is grave. The workable course is functional unbundling — fencing, underpasses, patrolling and helplines with NHAI [2][3]; impounding, sterilisation and shelters with local bodies, backed by tied grants. Such cooperative, capacity-matched implementation upholds both Article 21 and constitutional devolution.