The Right to Walk: Supreme Court Declares Fundamental Right

The Right to Walk: Supreme Court Declares Footpaths a Fundamental Right

Analysis of Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. (2026 INSC 647)

Introduction

In a landmark judgment delivered on 19 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India transformed the legal discourse surrounding pedestrians' rights by declaring that the Right to Walk is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution. The Court further recognized that this right necessarily includes the right to access safe, demarcated, and well-maintained footpaths.

The decision arose from a tragic road accident involving the death of a five-year-old child. However, the Court moved beyond the individual dispute and addressed a larger constitutional question: Can citizens truly enjoy the freedom of movement if roads are designed only for vehicles and not for pedestrians?

This judgment marks a significant shift in Indian constitutional jurisprudence by placing pedestrians at the center of urban planning and public infrastructure.

Facts of the Case

The case concerned a five-year-old boy who was walking to school with his father. While they were proceeding on the road, a tanker struck the child from behind, causing fatal injuries.

A crucial fact noted by the Court was that there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing on the road.

The father filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which was subsequently reduced by the High Court. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

While deciding the compensation issue, the Court also examined the broader constitutional implications arising from the absence of pedestrian infrastructure.

The Constitutional Question

The Court posed a fundamental question:

If citizens possess the constitutional right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d), does that right not first and foremost include the ability to walk safely?

The Court answered this question in the affirmative.

According to the Court, walking is the most basic and natural form of human movement. Long before the invention of motor vehicles, people exercised their freedom of movement by walking.

Therefore, the right to move freely must necessarily include the right to walk safely.

Recognition of the Right to Walk as a Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court held that:

• The Right to Walk is an integral part of Article 19(1)(d) (Freedom of Movement).

• It is closely linked with Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

• It also intersects with:

  • Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression

  • Article 19(1)(b) – Right to Assemble Peaceably

  • Article 19(1)(c) – Freedom of Association

The Court observed that walking is not merely physical movement. It is often a means of expression, protest, social interaction, cultural participation, and religious practice.

Thus, walking enjoys constitutional protection beyond simple mobility.

Recognition of the Right to Footpaths

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the Court's declaration that:

The Fundamental Right to Walk includes the Right to Demarcated Footpaths.

The Court criticized the prevailing approach of road development in India, where roads are designed primarily for vehicles while pedestrians are forced to share dangerous traffic spaces.

According to the Court:

• Footpaths are not luxuries.

• Footpaths are not optional civic amenities.

• Footpaths are constitutional necessities.

The Court stated that pedestrians should not be treated as obstacles to motorized traffic.

Instead, roads must accommodate pedestrians as primary users of public spaces.

Priority of Pedestrians Over Vehicles

Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of the judgment is the Court's statement that:

The fundamental right of pedestrians shall have priority over the movement of motorized vehicles.

This declaration reverses the traditional vehicle-centric approach that dominates Indian urban planning.

The Court emphasized that public roads exist for citizens first and vehicles second.

Consequently, pedestrian infrastructure must receive priority in planning, construction, and maintenance.

Duty of Public Authorities

The Court imposed a corresponding duty upon:

• Urban Development Authorities

• Municipal Corporations

• Municipal Councils

• Municipalities

• Panchayats

The Court held that wherever a road exists, authorities must:

1. Demarcate footpaths.

2. Construct pedestrian infrastructure.

3. Maintain footpaths.

4. Protect pedestrians from encroachments and unsafe conditions.

This duty is not merely administrative but constitutional in nature.

Failure to discharge this obligation can lead to legal consequences.

Criticism of the Motor Vehicles Act

The Court made significant observations regarding the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

According to the Court:

• The Act is primarily vehicle-centric.

• It regulates licensing, registration, permits, insurance, and traffic management.

• It does not recognize the pedestrian's right to walk.

• It does not establish a comprehensive framework for protecting pedestrians.

While the Act imposes certain duties upon drivers to exercise caution, it does not create an enforceable right in favor of pedestrians.

The Court therefore concluded that a separate legislative framework is necessary.

Call for New Legislation

The Supreme Court directed that copies of the judgment be sent to:

• Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

• Ministry of Rural Development

• Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

• Law Commission of India

The Court recommended enactment of a comprehensive statute that would:

Recognize

The Right to Walk as a statutory right.

Identify Duty Bearers

Specify the authorities responsible for pedestrian infrastructure.

Provide Remedies

Create mechanisms for citizens to seek redress.

Establish a Regulator

Set up an independent authority responsible for planning, monitoring, and enforcing pedestrian rights.

This is perhaps the first time the Supreme Court has expressly called for a dedicated legal regime governing pedestrian rights.

Remedies for Violation of the Right

The Court clarified that citizens whose right to walk is violated may seek:

Constitutional Remedies

Through:

• Article 32 before the Supreme Court

• Article 226 before High Courts

Civil Remedies

Under:

• Sections 38 to 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

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

Thus, even where compensation is awarded in a motor accident claim, citizens may still seek separate relief against public authorities responsible for failing to provide adequate pedestrian infrastructure.

Compensation Awarded in the Present Case

While discussing constitutional principles, the Court also resolved the compensation dispute.

The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha and recalculated compensation on the basis of:

• Notional income

• Future prospects

• Loss of dependency

• Loss of consortium

• Funeral expenses

• Loss of estate

The Court enhanced compensation and awarded:

₹11,44,628

to the appellant parents.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

1. Expansion of Fundamental Rights

The Court expanded Article 19(1)(d) by explicitly recognizing the Right to Walk.

2. Human-Centric Urban Planning

The judgment shifts the focus from vehicle-centric development to people-centric development.

3. Accountability of Authorities

Municipal bodies can no longer treat footpaths as optional infrastructure.

4. New Constitutional Remedies

Citizens now have stronger grounds to challenge the absence or poor condition of footpaths.

5. Impact on Future Litigation

The judgment is likely to influence:

• Public Interest Litigations

• Urban development policies

• Municipal governance

• Road safety jurisprudence

• Constitutional law scholarship

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan is far more than a compensation case. It is a constitutional recognition of a simple but often ignored reality: every citizen is first a pedestrian before becoming a vehicle user.

By declaring the Right to Walk and the Right to Safe Footpaths as Fundamental Rights, the Court has reaffirmed that public infrastructure must serve human dignity, safety, and freedom.

This judgment has the potential to reshape India's cities, villages, and public spaces by ensuring that roads are built not merely for vehicles, but for people.

Author's Note:
This judgment may be remembered as the case that elevated the humble footpath from a civic amenity to a constitutional guarantee, thereby bringing the constitutional promise of freedom of movement closer to everyday life.

Email: teamlawctagon@gmail.com

Subscribe