“A road, particularly a high-speed Expressway, must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps.” – Supreme Court of India. The expansion of highways and expressways has transformed India’s transportation network, facilitating trade, connectivity, and economic growth. This infrastructural advancement has simultaneously intensified concerns relating to road accidents, unsafe highway conditions, and preventable fatalities. India records one of the highest numbers of road accident deaths globally, with National Highways accounting for a disproportionately high percentage of fatalities despite constituting only a small portion of the total road network. These accidents frequently arise not merely from individual negligence but from unsafe road conditions such as illegal encroachments, unsafe parking practices, inadequate lighting, defective road engineering, poor surveillance systems, and delayed emergency medical response. Traditionally regarded as an administrative or regulatory issue, road safety has acquired constitutional worth through judicial interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in In Re: Phalodi Accident v. National Highways Authority of India, recognized commuter safety and the right to safe travel on highways as a vital part of the Right to Life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21. The Court observed that the State’s obligation extends beyond refraining from unlawful deprivation of life and includes a positive duty to create conditions where life is preserved and protected. The paper examines the constitutional foundations of highway safety through Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, along with the Directive Principles of State Policy. It further analyses the statutory framework governing road safety, including the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002. Judicial developments in cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, and S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India demonstrate the judiciary’s growing approach towards public safety, legal tort liability, and State accountability. The study also highlights persistent challenges including weak enforcement, infrastructural neglect, lack of institutional coordination, and inadequate trauma care facilities. It argues that authorities must prevent avoidable accidents rather than mere post-accident compensation. The recognition of safe travel as a constitutional guarantee signifies an important development in Article 21 interpretation, reaffirming that highways cannot be permitted to become “corridors of peril” due to administrative indifference or infrastructural failure.