Footpaths Are Not Optional: The Citizen’s Right to Walk

The Story That Shook the Courts: A Five-Year-Old and a Footpath That Was Never There

Imagine a father walking his five-year-old son to school on a regular morning. There is no footpath. There is no pedestrian crossing. The road belongs entirely to vehicles. A tanker comes from behind and strikes the child, crushing his waist and lower body. The boy survives but with serious injuries. The family approaches the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awards Rs. 7.82 lakh in compensation. The High Court later reduces it to Rs. 4.70 lakh. Unhappy and fighting for justice, the family knocks on the doors of the Supreme Court. What follows is not just a compensation case — it becomes a historic moment for every pedestrian in India. The Supreme Court, in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., decided on June 19, 2026, declared that the right to walk on safe, demarcated footpaths is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar did not just settle a compensation dispute — they opened up an entirely new constitutional chapter.

What Did the Supreme Court Actually Say? The Judgment in Plain Words

The Supreme Court did not create a brand-new right out of thin air. It simply said: the right to walk was always there in the Constitution — we just never paid enough attention to it. The Court declared that the right to walk on safe and well-maintained footpaths is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution. In clear terms, the Court stated that pedestrians must have priority over motor vehicles, not the other way around.

The bench also directed that this case be re-numbered as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution — the article that allows citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for violation of fundamental rights — with a new title: "Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath." The Union Government was made a party to the case through three key ministries: Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways.

On the compensation side, the Supreme Court enhanced the amount to Rs. 11,44,628 and ordered it to be paid within two months. But more importantly, it recognized that the accident happened partly because there was no footpath and no pedestrian crossing at the spot — a systemic failure, not just bad luck.

The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law Commission of India to examine the need for a proper statutory framework — basically a new law — that protects pedestrian rights, names who is responsible, and provides quick remedies when rights are violated.

The Constitution Speaks: Which Articles Give You the Right to Walk?

The Supreme Court rooted this judgment in multiple constitutional provisions. Let us understand them in simple terms:

Article 21 — The Right to Life and Personal Liberty

This is the most powerful article in Part III. It says no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 far beyond its literal meaning. It now includes the right to a clean environment, the right to livelihood, the right to health, and now — the right to walk safely. The Court reasoned that if a person cannot step out of their home and walk safely on a public road, their life and personal liberty are being taken away in the most basic sense.

Article 19(1)(d) — The Right to Move Freely

This clause gives every citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. The Court said this is not just about travelling from one state to another in a car or train. It also covers something as simple and human as walking on a road. Freedom of movement, the Court held, naturally includes the freedom to walk safely on a demarcated footpath. If there is no footpath, or the footpath is occupied by vendors, parked vehicles, or construction debris, your Article 19(1)(d) right is being violated.

Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(c) — Expression, Assembly, and Association

This is where the Court made a deeper, almost philosophical point. It said that walking is not just physical movement — it is intertwined with other fundamental freedoms. Walking has been a tool of protest, a form of religious expression, a means of community gathering, and a vehicle for political change in India. From Gandhi’s Dandi March to street processions, from pilgrimage walks to protest marches — walking has always been at the heart of India’s democratic and cultural life. Therefore, the right to walk is also connected to the freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a)), freedom of assembly (Article 19(1)(b)), and freedom of association (Article 19(1)(c)). If you cannot walk safely, all these freedoms are indirectly curtailed.

Taken together, these articles create a strong constitutional foundation. The Court made it clear that the state has a corresponding duty whenever a fundamental right exists. In this case, if the road exists, then safe footpaths must exist alongside it. This is not optional. It is constitutionally mandatory.

Why Was This Judgment So Important? The Ground Reality of India’s Footpaths

Ask yourself: When was the last time you walked uninterrupted on a footpath in an Indian city? Chances are, you had to dodge a parked motorcycle, a vegetable vendor’s cart, an electricity pole in the middle of the path, or a pile of sand from a nearby construction site. And if you are a senior citizen, a person with disability, or a child, that experience is ten times worse.

Data paints a grim picture. According to the Central Road Research Institute, nine out of ten pedestrians in India feel unsafe while crossing roads. Less than 30% of urban roads in India have accessible footpaths. India consistently ranks among the worst countries in the world for pedestrian road deaths. In 2022 alone, over 23,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in India. These are not just statistics — these are people who simply stepped out of their homes and never came back.

For decades, Indian city planners have designed roads for cars and trucks, not for people. Flyovers multiplied, roads widened, signal-free corridors were built — all to help vehicles move faster. Pedestrians were treated as an afterthought. The Supreme Court’s judgment is a direct rebuke to this mindset. The Court said plainly: the absence of safe and comfortable footpaths has been a civilizational problem. By bringing pedestrian rights under the Constitution, the Court has changed the conversation permanently. Walking is no longer just an activity — it is a right.

Words on Paper or Change on the Ground? The Real Challenge of Implementation

Let’s be honest — India is not short of good laws. What it often lacks is effective enforcement. The Supreme Court’s judgment is powerful, but turning it into reality will require confronting several difficult contradictions in existing laws and on-ground practices.

Conflict with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014

One of the biggest occupiers of footpaths in Indian cities is the street vendor. The Street Vendors Act, 2014 was passed to protect the livelihoods of hawkers and vendors who depend on public spaces for their income. The Act allows for regulated vending zones, but prohibits unauthorized encroachments on footpaths. In practice, however, vending zones are rarely created, so vendors continue to set up on footpaths because they have nowhere else to go.

This creates a direct tension between two sets of rights: the vendor’s right to livelihood (also protected under Article 21) and the pedestrian’s right to walk. The Supreme Court’s judgment does not resolve this tension directly. For implementation to work, municipal authorities must urgently create proper, designated vending zones away from pedestrian paths, so that vendors are not displaced but footpaths are also freed. Simply evicting vendors without alternatives will be both legally challenged and socially unjust.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — A Law That Forgot the Pedestrian

The Supreme Court specifically criticized the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for failing pedestrians. The Act primarily focuses on vehicle registration, licensing, insurance, and compensation for accident victims. It penalizes illegal parking on footpaths under Section 138 and the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 — but enforcement is nearly non-existent. Two-wheelers regularly use footpaths as shortcuts. Cars park on pavements with impunity. Traffic police rarely fine such violations.

The Court correctly pointed out that under the Motor Vehicles Act, pedestrian rights are treated as incidental — not primary. The compensation framework under the Act also does not address the structural failure (no footpath, no crossing) — it only deals with individual accidents. Now, with the Supreme Court recognizing a constitutional remedy that is separate and independent from the Motor Vehicles Act, citizens can now directly hold municipal bodies accountable through constitutional remedies — without being forced to only seek compensation through accident tribunals.

Municipal Corporations and the Problem of Accountability

Municipal corporations are the primary duty-bearers under this judgment. The Court placed the responsibility to build, demarcate, maintain, and protect footpaths squarely on Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats. But there is a serious problem: municipalities in India are notoriously underfunded, understaffed, and politically pressured.

In many cities, the same municipal corporation that is supposed to build footpaths also issues licenses for shops and stalls that encroach upon them. Political patronage often protects vendors and encroachers who have electoral influence. In some cases, municipal officials themselves allow construction materials to be dumped on footpaths for a fee. Corruption and poor governance are not side issues here — they are central obstacles.

For effective implementation, the following steps are essential:

•        A dedicated pedestrian rights regulatory body, as directed by the Court, must be established with real powers of inspection and penalty.

•        A new, comprehensive Pedestrian Rights Act must be enacted that defines duty bearers, sets building standards for footpaths, and provides fast-track remedies.

•        Traffic police must be specifically trained and empowered to take action against vehicles parked on or driven over footpaths.

•        All new road projects must mandatorily include footpaths of standard width before they can receive government approval or funding.

•        Citizens must be given easy, accessible grievance mechanisms — a simple app or online portal — to report footpath encroachments, with a mandatory time-bound response from authorities.

Beyond Footpaths: Are There Better Alternatives?

Some urban planners argue that even if every footpath in India is fixed tomorrow, it may not be enough. The deeper problem is how our cities are designed. Alternatives and complementary solutions need to be explored alongside footpath development.

•        Pedestrian-Only Zones: Cities like Chennai have experimented with pedestrian plazas (like the Pondy Bazaar project). More such car-free zones in commercial and heritage areas can give pedestrians genuinely safe spaces without having to share road margins with vehicles.

•        Better Public Transport: Many people walk on dangerous roads not by choice but because they cannot afford private vehicles and public transport drops them far from their destinations. Improving last-mile connectivity through better bus networks, cycle lanes, and metro feeder services will reduce the number of people forced onto dangerous roads.

•        Accessible Infrastructure for Persons with Disabilities: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 already requires accessible public infrastructure. The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces this by making footpaths disability-friendly a constitutional obligation, not just a statutory one. Ramps, tactile paths, and proper kerb cuts must be included in every footpath project.

•        Technology and Monitoring: Some cities are using AI-enabled CCTV systems to detect encroachments on footpaths in real time. Smart city initiatives could incorporate footpath monitoring as a standard feature. Technology, however, can only supplement — not replace — political will and administrative accountability.

•        Urban Planning Reform: The most radical but necessary alternative is to redesign how Indian cities are planned from scratch. Future city master plans must legally require a minimum footpath width for every road, dedicated cycling lanes, and traffic-calming measures in residential areas. Without reforming planning norms, judicial orders will remain largely symbolic.

A Step Forward, But the Walk Is Long: What This Means for Students and Citizens

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Right to Walk case is genuinely historic. For the first time, it has been said loudly and clearly at the highest level that pedestrians are not second-class users of public roads. Their rights are primary. Their safety is constitutional. And the state cannot hide behind bad infrastructure as an excuse.

For law students, this judgment is a masterclass in how the Supreme Court uses constitutional interpretation to expand fundamental rights without amending the Constitution. Articles 19 and 21, read together, have once again been stretched to cover a real, lived problem that millions of Indians face every single day.

But students of public policy and governance must also ask the harder question: will this change anything on the ground? India has had strong judicial orders on air pollution, river cleaning, and slum rehabilitation — and compliance has been partial at best. The challenge is not just legal recognition but institutional change. Unless municipal corporations are funded properly, held accountable strictly, and given clear timelines, this landmark judgment risks becoming one more order gathering dust in the files of some government office.

The good news is that citizens now have a new, powerful tool. If your footpath is encroached upon, if a municipal body refuses to build one, or if a road is widened without a pedestrian path — you can now challenge this as a violation of your fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. You do not have to wait for an accident to happen. You can demand a footpath before someone gets hurt.

The five-year-old boy who was struck by a tanker on his way to school started a conversation that this country desperately needed. His suffering, and his family’s fight for justice, has now given every pedestrian in India a constitutional shield. That shield only works if we know it exists — and if we are willing to use it. The Supreme Court has done its part. Now it is time for Parliament, state governments, municipal bodies, and citizens to do theirs.