Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court

"Citizen’s fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles," Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling dated June 19, 2026, has elevated the "Right to Walk" on demarcated footpaths to the status of a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that this right is an integral part of the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d) and the right to life under Article 21. The Court emphasized that municipal authorities bear a mandatory and enforceable duty to provide and maintain safe pedestrian infrastructure, prioritizing walkers over motorized transport.

The matter arose from a tragic accident where a five-year-old child was crushed by a tanker while walking to school in a neighborhood lacking footpaths or pedestrian crossings. The appellants challenged a High Court order that had significantly reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Supreme Court utilized this case to address the systemic neglect of pedestrian rights in India's urban and rural planning regimes.

The primary question before the Court was whether the right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d) encompasses a fundamental right to walk on safe, demarcated footpaths. The Court was also called upon to determine the extent of the liability of municipal authorities for failing to provide such infrastructure and whether the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sufficiently protects the rights of pedestrians.

Right To Walk Is Integral To Articles 19(1)(d) and 21

The Court observed that the "right to move" has been erroneously associated primarily with movement on wheels in the public imagination. It clarified that the primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the fundamental right to walk, which precedes the right to move on wheels. The bench noted that this right must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and well-demarcated footpaths, as walking is "the simplest of the simple human activity" and is inextricably connected to the right to life.

Municipal Authorities Owe A Mandatory Duty To Pedestrians

Addressing the liability of local bodies, the Court held that the provision of footpaths is not a mere discretionary function but a "minimum of the minimum duty" that a municipal authority owes to its citizens. The bench identified the duty bearers as Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and even Panchayats. It declared that if a road exists, there is a corresponding, enforceable duty to ensure a footpath is demarcated and maintained for walkers.

Footpaths Must Have Priority Over Motorized Vehicles

The Court critiqued the historical focus of municipal administrations on creating roads suitable only for motorized vehicles, describing it as a form of "elitism" where machines were prioritized over humans. It held that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall override the privilege of a motorized vehicle. The judgment noted that the absence of safe footpaths is a "civilizational problem" that has routinely transformed human tragedies into mere FIRs and insurance claims.

Motor Vehicles Act Fails To Protect Pedestrian Rights

The bench observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was never intended to protect the right to walk and has, in many ways, acted as an impediment to walkers' rights. The Court pointed out that the Act is built upon the "vehicle" as the subject of legislation, while human interests are treated as incidental. It noted that while driving regulations contemplate duties toward vulnerable road users, they remain mere guiding principles that do not recognize the primacy of the pedestrian.

Restitutionary Remedies Available Against Municipal Bodies

In a significant legal development, the Court clarified that citizens are entitled to invoke restitutionary remedies under the Constitution or the Specific Relief Act for the enforcement of public duties related to pedestrian infrastructure. This remedy is distinct and independent from any claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The bench held that such remedies can be enforced directly against municipal authorities for their failure to provide safe walking spaces.

Need For A Dedicated Statutory Framework And Regulator

To effectuate this fundamental right, the Court emphasized the necessity of a statutory framework similar to the Right to Education Act or the National Food Security Act. It noted that a full-time regulatory body is required to plan, enforce, and implement pedestrian rights with institutional expertise and accountability. The Court directed the Registry to send the judgment to various Union Ministries and the Law Commission to initiate the necessary legal framework.

Compensation For Minor's Death Recalculated

On the facts of the case, the Court set aside the High Court's order and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,44,628/-. Citing its precedent in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, the Court calculated the compensation by referring to the Minimum Wages Act for skilled workers and adding 40% for future prospects. It held that the High Court had committed a grave error in reducing the original award granted to the grieving father.

The Supreme Court formally declared the right to walk as a fundamental right and directed the re-numbering of the case to monitor the implementation of pedestrian safety guidelines. The ruling establishes that access to common spaces must be distributed equitably and cannot remain a monopoly of the motorized class, placing a constitutional burden on municipal bodies to safeguard pedestrian infrastructure as an integral component of the right to life.

Date of Decision: June 19, 2026