Law Needed To Protect Right To Walk On Footpaths : Supreme Court Tells Centre

The Supreme Court today(June 19) recognised the right of pedestrians to walk on the footpath as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, preceding the right of motorised vehicles. The Court held that there is a compelling need to lay down a statutory framework not only for the declaration of this right but also to recognise that the violation of this right would entitle one to restitutionary remedies. 

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar made these observations in a motor vehicle incident where a 5-year-old lost his life after he was hit by a tanker on his way to school with his father. His father sought compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 but it was reduced to Rs. 4,70,000. The bench enhanced it to Rs. 11,44,628 to be paid within 2 months.

In making these observations, the bench felt that there is a need for a statutory framework and therefore directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways and has impleaded them as parties. 

"Insofar as the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is concerned, though it is integral to Articles 21 and 19(1) (d), there is no legislation. It is compelling to lay down a statutory framework not only for declaring the right, but also to recognise the duty bearers. The Act must protect, enhance, and provide quick remedies for violations, and also establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this precious right. We direct the Registry to send a copy of our judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways, to reflect on the compelling necessity for initiating the necessary legal framework."

It has also directed that a copy of the judgment must be sent to the Law Commission for examining the statutory framework for protecting the right, identifying the duty bearers and providing remedies. This is in the backdrop of the fact that it has clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not a legislation meant for protecting the right to walk on the footpath and, in many ways, has undermined the rights of walkers. 

Additionally, to effectuate the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths, the Court has said that it's important to establish a regulatory body. 

Lastly, it has directed the Registry to rename the case title as 'Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath' for continued monitoring. 

Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(d), Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), Article 19(1)(c), and Article 21 — Fundamental Right to Walk and Access Demarcated Footpaths — Priority over Motorised Vehicles - The Supreme Court declared that the "Right to Walk" is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India - It is inextricably connected to life and is integral to the right to move freely throughout the territory of India - This right takes within its sweep the right to safe, comfortable, and well-demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads, which must be treated as primary and take priority over the movement of motorized vehicles - Walking also embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights. [Paras 20]

Constitutional & Administrative Law — Correlative Public Duties of Local Authorities — Maintenance of Pedestrian Infrastructure – The Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths carries a corresponding, enforceable legal duty upon public authorities - Wherever a road exists, there is a strict public duty to ensure a footpath is demarcated, constructed, and safely maintained - The primary duty-bearers responsible for provisioning and safeguarding this pedestrian infrastructure are Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats. [Paras 7 - 10]

Remedies — Restitutionary Remedy vs. Motor Vehicles Act Claims — Independent Action for Rights Violation - The Supreme Court distinguished between claims arising out of motor accidents and the violation of pedestrian rights - If the fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is violated due to the failure of state/local actors, citizens are fully entitled to invoke constitutional remedies or public law restitutionary remedies (such as under Sections 38–40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963) against the defaulting local bodies - This restitutionary remedy is independent of, and distinct from, any statutory compensation claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Paras 15 - 20]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Statutory Limitations regarding Pedestrian Rights — Regulatory Framework Deficiencies - The Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (and its 1939 predecessor) is primarily built around the "vehicle" as its subject, making human/pedestrian interests merely incidental - While the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 impose general safety duties on drivers regarding vulnerable road users, they fail to recognize the fundamental right to walk or prioritize footpaths over motorized roads - The Parliament has not yet established a full-time regulatory body for motor transport or pedestrian safety under the Act. [Paras 6-14]

Motor Accident Compensation — Fatal Accident of a Minor Child — Recalculation of Loss of Dependency and Conventional Heads - In assessing the compensation for the death of a 5-year-old child caused by a speeding tanker, the High Court erred in reducing the MACT's award - Applying established legal principles for minor victims, the daily wage was assessed based on the skilled worker rates under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, evaluating annual income with a 40% addition for future prospects and a 50% deduction for personal expenses - Applying a multiplier of 18, the Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to ₹11,44,628/-, distributed across loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses. [Relied on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 INSC 1244; In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 INSC 388; Lucknow Public School, Eldico v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 422; Paras 17-19]