Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of India has declared the right to walk as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, encompassing the right to demarcated footpaths.
- This fundamental right to walk and access footpaths holds priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
- Urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats bear a correlative duty to construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths.
- Citizens can seek restitutionary and compensatory remedies for violations of the right to walk, independent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The Court has called for new legislation and a dedicated regulatory body to protect, enhance, and enforce this fundamental right.
Key Background Facts
The case originated from a tragic accident where a five-year-old child was struck and killed by a tanker while walking to school with his father. There was no footpath or pedestrian crossing at the accident site. The child's father filed a claim petition for compensation, which led to an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The High Court subsequently reduced the compensation, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.Legal Issue Before the Court
The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were twofold:1. Whether the right to walk constitutes a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and the implications thereof.2. The adequacy of compensation awarded for the death of a minor in a motor vehicle accident, particularly after the High Court reduced the MACT's initial award.Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court emphatically declared the right to walk as a fundamental right. It rooted this right in Article 19(1)(d) (freedom to move freely), read with 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), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court stated that this right precedes the right to move on wheels and includes guaranteed access to safe, well-demarcated footpaths, which shall have priority over motorised vehicles.The Court observed a historical failure to recognise and secure this "right to walk," attributing it partly to an "elitism" where machines with wheels dominated road planning, marginalising walkers. It criticised the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for being vehicle-centric, treating "human" interests as incidental, and failing to recognise or prioritise the fundamental right to walk on footpaths. The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for a full-time regulatory body for motor transport.Drawing parallels with the Right to Education Act, 2009, the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Court highlighted the necessity of a statutory framework. Such a framework should not only declare the right to walk but also recognise duty bearers, provision quick remedies for violations, and establish a full-time regulator with institutional memory, expertise, integrity, transparency, and accountability. The Court directed the Registry to send copies of the judgment to relevant Ministries and the Law Commission for considering the initiation of the necessary legal framework.Regarding compensation, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation granted by the MACT. Citing its recent decision in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha (2025 INSC 1244), the Court recalculated the compensation based on the deceased minor's notional income, future prospects, and standard deductions. For the full text of the judgment, refer to 2026 INSC 647.Important Observations
The Court made several significant observations:- "The primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels." This establishes the foundational nature of pedestrian rights.
- "The citizen’s fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles." This observation unequivocally places pedestrian safety and access above vehicular movement.
- "The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk." This highlights a significant lacuna in existing legislation concerning pedestrian rights.
- The Court noted that walking "certainly embodies expressional, congregational and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b) and Article 19(1)(c)." This expands the constitutional ambit of the right to walk beyond mere physical movement.
- It emphasized that "If a road exists, there must then be a duty to ensure that a footpath is demarcated and maintained for the walkers." This creates an enforceable duty on public authorities.
- "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 Act, 1988." This opens new avenues for litigation and accountability.
Outcome
The Supreme Court declared the right to walk as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, specifically Article 19(1)(d) read with Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and 21, explicitly including the right to demarcated footpaths with priority over motorised vehicles. It established a correlative duty on urban and local authorities to provide and maintain these footpaths. The Court also affirmed that citizens are entitled to constitutional and legal remedies for violations, independent of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the specific case, the Court allowed the appeal, recalculating and enhancing the compensation for the deceased minor to Rs. 11,44,628/-, to be paid within two months. The Court further directed that the case be re-numbered as a petition under Article 32, titled "Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath," impleading relevant government ministries, and appointed an Amicus Curiae and ASG to assist.Practical Implications
The judgment has significant practical implications for legal practitioners and urban governance. Urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats now face an explicit, enforceable constitutional duty to provide and maintain safe, demarcated footpaths. This may lead to increased public interest litigation (PILs) and individual claims for restitution or compensation against these duty bearers, independent of motor accident claims. Legal practitioners can advise clients on invoking constitutional remedies, such as writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226, to enforce the right to walk or seek compensation for its violation. Furthermore, the Court's directive for new legislation signals a potential overhaul of statutory frameworks concerning pedestrian infrastructure and safety, which will require legal professionals to stay abreast of legislative developments. The enhanced compensation calculation for minor victims, referencing Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, provides a clearer benchmark for future motor accident claims involving similar circumstances.Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal basis for the fundamental right to walk?
The Supreme Court has declared the right to walk as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, pertaining to the freedom to move freely. This right is further enriched by Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c) relating to expression, assembly, and association, and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life. It specifically encompasses the right to safe and demarcated footpaths.
Do pedestrian rights take precedence over motorised vehicle movement?
Yes, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles. This establishes a clear hierarchy, elevating pedestrian safety and access in urban and rural planning.
Who is responsible for providing and maintaining footpaths?
The Court identified urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats as the primary duty bearers. They have a correlative and enforceable duty to ensure that wherever a road exists, a footpath is demarcated, constructed, maintained, and safeguarded for walkers.
Can a citizen seek remedies if their right to walk is violated due to lack of footpaths?
Yes, citizens are entitled to invoke constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation against the identified duty bearers if their right to walk on demarcated footpaths is violated. These remedies are independent of any claims that can be made under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
What is the implication of this judgment on existing motor vehicle laws?
The Supreme Court clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not a legislation designed to protect the fundamental right to walk and, in many ways, has undermined walkers' rights. While the MV Act deals with vehicle-centric regulations, the Court's judgment paves the way for a separate, dedicated statutory framework to protect and enforce pedestrian rights, with its own remedies and regulatory body.
