The Supreme Court recognised citizens’ right to use safe and demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right. It also urged the government to enact a law requiring municipal and local authorities to build, mark, and maintain proper pedestrian infrastructure for safe public access.
The Supreme Court held that the right to use secure, demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right.
It also urged the government to enact legislation that formally recognises this right and acknowledges the responsibility of municipal and local authorities to build, demarcate, and maintain the pedestrian infrastructure required to ensure safe access for walkers.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said,
“The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1) (b), Article 19(1) (c) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles,”
The Court further explained that the right carries a corresponding obligation for the authorities tasked with public road infrastructure.
The bench said,
“If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers. The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats, who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure, as walking is integral to life,”
It added that where citizens’ rights to safe, demarcated footpaths are violated, they can seek constitutional and legal remedies, including compensation.
It added,
“The violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation. This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988.”
The judgment arose from a motor accident dispute involving the death of a five-year-old boy. According to the record, a man and his son were walking to school when a tanker struck the boy from behind, crushing his waist and lower body. The child later died due to the injuries.
Earlier, On May 30, 2016, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs 7.82 lakh with 6% interest per annum. After an appeal by the insurance company, the High Court reduced the amount to Rs 4.70 lakh. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in cutting down the compensation and increased it to Rs 11,44,628, directing payment within two months.
The Supreme Court also noted that there was no footpath or pedestrian crossing on the road section where the accident occurred, remarking that such incidents continue possibly until India restructures its approach to road access by recognising the corresponding duties of authorities.
The Court said that because walking is inseparable from life, the Constitution recognises it as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d). It also linked the right to movement with other constitutional freedoms and protections, emphasising that access to safe footpaths is a necessary part of ensuring that movement rights are meaningful in practice.
It observed that the right to movement on roads must not be treated as beginning only when people use vehicles. Instead, it characterised the right to walk as the primary freedom that comes before the option to move by wheels, and stressed that this right must include safe access to properly demarcated footpaths.
The bench also commented that the focus on motor vehicles has increasingly sidelined walkers, leaving them vulnerable to being treated as an inconvenience by drivers. It directed that this should change going forward now that the “right to walk” alongside motorised roads has been declared fundamental.
The judgment noted that the Motor Vehicles Act does not recognise the fundamental right to walk. It described the Act as having acted as an impediment in many respects by failing to protect walkers’ rights adequately especially in cases where safe and comfortable footpaths are absent or are subordinated to motorised transport.
The Court called this a “civilisational problem,” and said improved footpath design wide, uninterrupted, and well demarcated can transform urban and rural living by improving equitable access to towns and cities.
The Court said it was rather strange that the legal and administrative system had not focused enough on securing the right to walk. It further suggested that the failure to prioritise pedestrians may reflect an overemphasis on vehicles and a lack of attention to how walking supports broader freedoms and social life.
It also pointed out that, despite the constitutional connection between walking and protected rights under Articles 19 and 21, there is currently no legislation specifically addressing the right to walk on demarcated footpaths, including the duties of those responsible for ensuring it, and effective remedies for violations.
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways so they can consider the need for a legal framework.
It also directed that the copy be forwarded to the Law Commission to examine what statutory measures should be introduced particularly in identifying duty bearers and providing remedies for breaches of the right to walk.