Supreme Court Calls for Statutory Protection of Citizens’ Right to Walk on Footpaths

The judgment is significant because it shifts the focus of transportation policy from vehicles to people. For decades, Indian roads have been designed primarily for motorised traffic, while pedestrians have been treated as secondary users of public spaces. The Supreme Court challenged this assumption and recognised that walking is the most basic form of human mobility and deserves constitutional protection.

The Court not only declared the right to walk an integral component of the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21, but also called upon the Union Government to consider a comprehensive legal framework to protect pedestrian rights. This decision has the potential to reshape urban governance, municipal accountability, and the future of public infrastructure in India.

The Tragic Incident Behind the Case

The case arose from a heartbreaking accident involving a five-year-old child. The child’s father was walking him to school when a tanker vehicle struck the boy from behind, crushing his lower body and causing fatal injuries. The Court noted a crucial fact: there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing at the location of the accident.

While the matter initially concerned compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court observed that such accidents are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader failure of governance in which pedestrians are compelled to share dangerous road space with motor vehicles due to the absence of dedicated walking infrastructure.

The judges remarked that society routinely converts such tragedies into criminal cases and compensation claims without addressing the underlying issue, the lack of safe spaces for walking. This realisation prompted the Court to examine the constitutional status of pedestrian rights.

Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Walk

The Supreme Court emphatically held that the right to walk is inherent in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), which grants citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. The Court rejected the common tendency to associate movement only with motorised transport. According to the judgment, human beings walked long before vehicles existed, and therefore, walking is the primary and original form of movement.

The Court observed that the right to walk is also closely connected with:

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty),
• Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression),
• Article 19(1)(b) (Right to Assemble Peaceably),
• Article 19(1)(c) (Right to Form Associations).

Walking often serves as a medium through which citizens exercise these freedoms. Public marches, protests, religious processions, pilgrimages, and community gatherings all involve the act of walking. Therefore, the denial of safe walking infrastructure indirectly affects multiple constitutional rights.

The Court declared that the right to walk includes the right to access safe, demarcated, and well-maintained footpaths and that this right must receive priority over motorised traffic.

Reclaiming Public Space for Pedestrians

One of the most striking observations in the judgment is the Court’s critique of modern urban planning. It noted that municipal authorities have historically prioritised roads for vehicles while neglecting pedestrians.

According to the Court, roads are public spaces that belong to all citizens, not merely to vehicle owners. Yet, the expansion of motorised transport has effectively marginalised walkers, forcing them into dangerous conditions. The Court described this as a civilizational problem arising from the failure to recognise the importance of walking in everyday life.

The judgment emphasises that pedestrians are not obstacles to traffic. Rather, they are exercising a constitutional right. Consequently, urban development policies must be redesigned to accommodate and protect them.

The Court envisioned cities and towns where wide, continuous, and unobstructed footpaths provide safe and equitable access to public spaces. Such infrastructure, as observed, can significantly improve the quality of urban life and make cities more inclusive.

Cultural and Historical Significance of Walking

An important feature of the judgment is its recognition of the cultural, social, religious, and political significance of walking in India.

The Court referred to several examples:

• The Dandi March, where Mahatma Gandhi transformed walking into a powerful instrument of political resistance.
• The Bhoodan Movement, through which Vinoba Bhave travelled thousands of kilometres on foot, advocating land redistribution.
• The Pandharpur Wari, an ancient pilgrimage tradition that brings together people from different social backgrounds.
• The Kanwar Yatra, involving long-distance religious journeys undertaken by devotees.
• Traditional community processions and cultural gatherings that rely upon public walking spaces.

By highlighting these examples, the Court demonstrated that walking is not merely a means of transportation. It is deeply embedded in India’s civilizational heritage and democratic traditions.

Correlative Duty of the State

Having declared the right to walk as a fundamental right, the Court identified the corresponding duty-bearers responsible for its protection.

The judgment places responsibility upon:

• Urban Development Authorities,
• Municipal Corporations,
• Municipal Councils,
• Municipalities,
• Panchayats,
• Other local governance institutions.

The Court held that where a road exists, there must also be a duty to provide and maintain a demarcated footpath.

This duty is not merely aspirational. The Court described it as an enforceable obligation. Public authorities can no longer justify the absence of pedestrian infrastructure by citing administrative convenience or financial constraints.

The decision, therefore, expands municipal accountability and creates a constitutional expectation that public infrastructure projects must include pedestrian facilities.

Need for Comprehensive Legislation

A major contribution of the judgment lies in its call for legislative action. The Court noted that although several fundamental rights have been operationalised through dedicated statutes, such as:

• The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,
• The National Food Security Act, 2013,
• The Right to Information Act, 2005—

there is no comparable legislation protecting pedestrian rights.

Accordingly, the Court urged the Government of India to consider enacting a statutory framework that would:

1. Formally recognise the right to walk.
2. Identify public authorities responsible for implementation.
3. Provide effective remedies for violations.
4. Create a dedicated regulatory institution.
5. Establish planning and enforcement mechanisms.

The Court directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways, as well as the Law Commission of India, for consideration of such legislation.

Why the Motor Vehicles Act Is Not Enough

The Supreme Court clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be regarded as legislation protecting pedestrian rights.

According to the Court, the Act is fundamentally vehicle-centric. It regulates:

• Driver licensing,
• Vehicle registration,
• Transport permits,
• Traffic control,
• Insurance,
• Accident claims,
• Vehicle standards.

Although certain regulations require drivers to exercise caution around pedestrians, these provisions merely impose obligations on motorists. They do not recognise pedestrians as rights-bearing citizens entitled to dedicated infrastructure.

The Court therefore distinguished between:

• Road safety measures under the Motor Vehicles Act, and
• The broader constitutional right to walk.

This distinction is important because it acknowledges that pedestrian rights extend beyond accident prevention and include access, dignity, mobility, and participation in public life.

Remedies for Violation of Pedestrian Rights

Another notable aspect of the judgment is its recognition of legal remedies for violations of the right to walk. The Court held that citizens can seek constitutional and legal remedies where authorities fail to provide safe pedestrian infrastructure. These remedies may include:

• Constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226,
• Public law compensation,
• Restitutionary relief,
• Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
• Other legal proceedings against public authorities.

Importantly, these remedies are independent of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Thus, even if an accident victim receives compensation through a motor accident claim, that does not absolve public authorities of responsibility for failing to provide pedestrian facilities.

This principle significantly broadens the scope of governmental liability.

Proposal for a Dedicated Pedestrian Regulator

The Court also emphasised the necessity of creating a specialised regulatory institution dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure.

Such a regulator would:

• Develop expertise in pedestrian planning,
• Maintain data and institutional memory,
• Monitor compliance,
• Establish standards,
• Ensure transparency and accountability,
• Coordinate among different government agencies.

The Court observed that modern governance increasingly relies upon specialised institutions because they possess continuity, expertise, and independence.

A dedicated pedestrian rights regulator could therefore play a transformative role in ensuring the implementation of constitutional guarantees.

Impact on Urban Governance

The judgment is likely to have far-reaching implications for urban governance in India.

Municipal authorities may now face greater scrutiny regarding:

• Encroached footpaths,
• Missing sidewalks,
• Unsafe crossings,
• Pedestrian-unfriendly road designs,
• Lack of accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Future infrastructure projects may be required to incorporate pedestrian considerations from the planning stage itself.

The decision also strengthens the legal basis for public interest litigation concerning walkability, accessibility, and urban planning.

Civil society organisations, resident welfare associations, disability rights groups, and environmental activists may increasingly invoke this judgment to demand pedestrian-friendly cities.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a constitutional milestone in India’s evolving understanding of public spaces and mobility rights. By declaring the right to walk as a fundamental right and recognising access to demarcated footpaths as an essential component of that right, the Court has restored visibility to a class of road users who have long been neglected.

The judgment acknowledges a simple but profound reality: every citizen is a pedestrian at some point. Walking is not merely a mode of transport but a foundational human activity connected to dignity, liberty, equality, health, and democratic participation.

Equally significant is the Court’s insistence that rights must be accompanied by duties. Municipal bodies, development authorities, and local governments can no longer ignore pedestrian infrastructure as an optional amenity. They are constitutional duty-bearers responsible for ensuring safe and accessible footpaths.

If the legislative and policy reforms envisioned by the Court are implemented, this decision may become a turning point in India’s urban development journey, one that shifts the focus from vehicles to people and reclaims public spaces for all citizens.

The judgment ultimately sends a powerful message: roads are not merely corridors for machines; they are shared public spaces where the constitutional right to walk must be respected, protected, and fulfilled.