The Supreme Court on Friday held that the right to walk on safe, demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right, and will take priority over the movement of vehicles [Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v P Ayyappan & Ors.].

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar noted this right flows from the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19 (which includes freedom of movement) and 21 (right to personal rights and liberty) of the Constitution.

Framing pedestrian access as a constitutional guarantee, the Court underscored that public authorities are under a binding obligation to provide and maintain footpaths.

“If a road exists, there must then be a duty to ensure that a footpath is demarcated and maintained for the walkers. This is an enforceable duty. The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall override the privilege of a motorised vehicle,” held the Court.

The Court clarified that the freedom to walk is subject to reasonable restrictions, but added that it must be ensured that common spaces are not monopolised by vehicle drivers alone.

The Bench observed that Indian cities and towns have long been designed with a disproportionate focus on vehicles, leaving pedestrians vulnerable and marginalised.

“The absence of safe and comfortable footpaths to walk on, and even when they exist, their subjugation to motor transport, has been a civilizational problem,” said the Court.

Tracing the evolution of this neglect, the Court pointed to how urban planning gradually prioritised motorised transport over human movement.

“It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognizing and securing this ‘right to walk’. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are suitable for motorised vehicles. It could also be elitism to start with, for machines with wheels were only for the rich, but as economies progressed and cheaper motor vehicles were introduced, the entire spectrum of motorised transportation dominated the roads, pushed aside the walkers to the extent that they are treated as a nuisance for the drivers who routinely run over the walkers and their footpaths," the Court remarked.

Making it clear that this approach can no longer continue, the Court said,

“This should stop from now on as we declare the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads.”

The judgment also identified the authorities responsible for implementing this right, stating that the obligation lies with urban and local bodies.

“We must affirm and secure to our citizens this fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths. Clear articulation and declaration of such a right is necessary to recognise the correlative duty to provision and maintain footpaths. The duty bearers are the Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and even Panchayats," the Court held.

The Court further clarified that a violation of the right to walk safely would entitle citizens to seek remedies against authorities responsible for providing pedestrian infrastructure, apart from a right to file compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. It noted that such remedies could be pursued through constitutional and civil proceedings.

The Court also highlighted the absence of a statutory framework governing pedestrian rights.

"To enhance and effectuate the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths, it is necessary to establish a regulatory body," the Court suggested.

The Court has also directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Ministries concerned and the Law Commission for consideration of appropriate legislation to define rights, duties and enforcement mechanisms.

The observations were made in a case arising from a fatal road accident resulting in the demise of a five-year-old child, after he was struck by a tanker while walking to school with his father.

The Court noted that the accident occurred in circumstances where there was no footpath or pedestrian crossing.

The Court ultimately set aside a High Court order that had reduced the compensation awarded to the child's family and enhanced the compensation payable to ₹11.44 lakh.

Additionally, the Court directed that the matter be converted into a separate proceeding before the Supreme Court to examine larger issues relating to pedestrian rights and infrastructure.

It asked the Union government, through the concerned ministries, to assist the Court in considering these issues further.

Advocate Mamidipudi V Mukunda appeared as amicus curiae and assisted the Court.

[Read Order]