Supreme Court Declares Freedom to Walk on Footpaths as Fundamental Right

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Pedestrian Rights

It warms the innermost cockles of every nerve of my brain and heart to see that the Supreme Court, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr vs P. Ayyappan & Ors in Civil Appeal No(s). 4665-4666/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC and also in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632, which was pronounced just recently on June 19, 2026, declared most emphatically that the freedom to walk on demarcated and well-maintained footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which has priority over movement by motorised vehicles and which includes the right to access safe and well-demarcated footpaths.

Case Background: Tragic Death of a Five-Year-Old Boy

It must be laid bare that this enriching judgement came in a case of the death of a five-year-old boy who was crushed to death by a truck tanker while walking to the neighbourhood school with his father.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Freedom to walk on demarcated and well-maintained footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution.
• This right has priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
• It includes the right to access safe and well-demarcated footpaths.
• Common public spaces must not be monopolised by vehicle drivers alone.

Supreme Court Clarifications on Reasonable Restrictions

It must also be noted that the Apex Court clarified that the freedom to walk is subject to reasonable restrictions but added that it must be ensured that common spaces are not monopolised by vehicle drivers alone.

Judgment Details and Citation

Particulars	Details
Case Title	Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr vs P. Ayyappan & Ors
Appeal Numbers	Civil Appeal No(s). 4665-4666/2025
Neutral Citation	2026 INSC
LiveLaw Citation	2026 LiveLaw (SC) 632
Date of Judgment	June 19, 2026

Why This Judgment Matters for Pedestrian Safety in India

This progressive ruling reinforces pedestrian rights and prioritises safe walking infrastructure. It sends a strong message to authorities to create and maintain dedicated footpaths, ensuring that vulnerable citizens — especially children — can walk safely to school and other destinations without fear.

Keywords: Supreme Court judgment, footpath rights, Article 19(1)(d), pedestrian safety, fundamental right to walk, India road safety

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Apex Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para. 1 that, “Like any young father, the appellant lovingly readied his five-year-old son and left home at 9 am to drop him at the neighbourhood school. Who could have ever imagined that it would be the last walk with his son? As father and son were walking towards the school, a tanker came from behind and struck the boy, crushing his waist and lower body. He succumbed to the injuries.”

Absence of Footpath and Pedestrian Crossing

As we see, the Bench points out in para 2 that, “Take it for granted there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing.”

Constitutional Right to Walk

Plainly speaking, the Bench observes in para 3 that "Accidents like this continue to occur; perhaps they are inevitable till we restructure our rights regime as regards access to roads and recognise concern about it and are, in fact, monitoring the implementation of safety guidelines" (S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 295/2012); this Court also passed certain guidelines in In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 INSC 388 as well. The issue is something more fundamental, and it is in recognition of the simplest of the simple human activities – "walking". While the right to walk is inextricably connected to life, our Constitution recognises and guarantees it as a fundamental right – “All citizens shall have the right…to move freely throughout the territory of India" (Article 19(1)(d)).

Fundamental Right to Walk vs Wheels

Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para. 4 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement, postulating precisely that, “It is necessary, rather compelling, that we first disabuse our minds of associating this 'right to move' only with movement on wheels. We have started walking long before wheels were put on our path. 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, and this precious right must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and well-demarcated footpaths. The citizen’s fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.”

Failure to Recognize Walkers’ Rights

Most alarmingly and most commendably, the Bench envisages in para 5 holding explicitly that, “It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognising and securing this “right to walk." It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are suitable for motorised vehicles. It could also be elitism to start with, for machines with wheels were only for the rich, but as economies progressed and cheaper motor vehicles were introduced, the entire spectrum of motorised transportation dominated the roads, pushed aside the walkers to the extent that they are treated as a nuisance for the drivers who routinely run over the walkers and their footpaths. This should stop from now on as we declare the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads.”

Motor Vehicles Act and Walkers

Do note, the bench notes in para 6 that, “The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk. In fact, the Motor Vehicles Act has been an impediment and, in many ways, undermined the precious rights of walkers. The absence of safe and comfortable footpaths to walk on, and even when they exist, their subjugation to motor transport, has been a civilisational problem.”

Transformative Potential of Footpaths

To say the very least, the Bench points out in para. 7 stipulating that "It is not at all difficult to imagine how a wide, well-demarcated and uninterrupted footpath can change the beauty of and equitable access to our cities and towns – this could truly be transformative of our urban and rural living. In reality, how much does it take to create a well-demarcated footpath wherever a road exists? All that the fundamental right to walk demands is a comfortable space for an easy and carefree walk. Should this not be the minimum of the minimum duty that a municipal authority owes to the citizens?”

Key Takeaways

• Right to Walk: Recognised as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d).
• Priority: Walking must take precedence over motorised transport.
• Municipal Duty: Authorities must ensure safe, well-demarcated footpaths.
• Transformative Impact: Footpaths can reshape urban and rural living.

Judgment Summary Table

Paragraph	Key Point
1	Tragic accident highlighting lack of pedestrian safety
2	No footpath or pedestrian crossing
3	Walking is recognized as fundamental right
4	The right to walk precedes right to move on wheels
5	Failure to secure walkers’ rights due to motorization
6	Motor Vehicles Act undermines walkers’ rights
7	Transformative potential of footpaths

Importance of Walking in Indian Culture

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 8 while underscoring the paramount importance of walking that "Walking has always triggered the Indian imagination – it has deep cultural, social, religious, political, and reformative roots.”

Cultural Roots

• Nagar Sankirtan: A traditional neighbourhood procession where communities walk through streets singing devotional folk songs to reclaim public spaces as sites of shared cultural and musical heritage.

Social Roots

• Pandharpur Wari: An 800-year-old pilgrimage that temporarily dissolves caste hierarchies as thousands walk together in egalitarian devotion.

Religious Roots

• Kanwar Yatra: An annual monsoon trek where devotees of Lord Shiva carry sacred Ganges water over hundreds of miles as an act of physical penance.

Political Roots

• Dandi March: Mahatma Gandhi’s 241-mile padayatra transformed a simple act of walking into a powerful tool of anti-colonial resistance.

Reformative Roots

• Bhoodan Movement: Led by Vinoba Bhave, who walked over 70,000 km to persuade landowners to voluntarily redistribute land to the landless.

Walking is a struggle for the not-so-fortunate, meditation in motion for many, resistance for others, discovery for the inquisitive, and a cohesive strategy for sharp socio-political minds. It certainly did inspire and ignite some of the ideals of the freedom struggle – which we have a duty to cherish under Article 51A of the Constitution.

In that sense, walking is not just motion; it embodies expressional, congregational and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b) and Article 19(1)(c). Unfortunately, we have failed to recognise these aspects to such an extent that the phrase “pedestrian” has acquired pejorative shades.

Fundamental Right to Walk

Quite significantly, the Bench underscores in para 9, propounding that, “Though late in the day, we must affirm and secure to our citizens this fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths. Clear articulation and declaration of such a right are necessary to recognise the correlative duty to provision and maintain footpaths. The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and even Panchayats.”

Duty to Maintain Footpaths

Do note, the bench notes in para 10 that, “If a road exists, there must then be a duty to ensure that a footpath is demarcated and maintained for the walkers. This is an enforceable duty. The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall override the privilege of a motorised vehicle.”

Need for a Regulatory Body

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 16 noting precisely that, “To enhance and effectuate the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths, it is necessary to establish a regulatory body. Working with perpetual seal and succession, such a regulator will develop and retain institutional memory so that it can act on the basis of the experience, data, and information it has gathered and processed.”

Institutional expertise is critical, and such a regulator will employ human resources with domain expertise and talent. The regulator will maintain institutional integrity by taking independent and objective decisions without governmental or industrial control. These values shall flow naturally if there is institutional transparency and accountability.

Bench Declaration on Right to Walk

Most remarkably and most rationally, the Bench then expounds in para 20, holding concisely that:

Declaration	Details
Right to Walk	The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), Article 19(1)(c) and Article 21. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
Correlative Duty	If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers. Duty bearers include urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats.
Violation Remedies	Violation of the right to walk entitles citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation. This remedy is independent of those available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Bench Observations in Para 17

It would be worthwhile to note that the bench notes in para 17 that, “Returning to the facts of the present case, the claim petition filed by the father for compensation of Rs. 2,500,000/- was considered, and MACT, by its award dated 30.05.2016, granted Rs. 782,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation. In an appeal filed by the appellant as well as the insurance company, by the order impugned before us, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and, while allowing the respondent’s appeal, reduced the compensation to Rs. 470,000/-."

Bench Observations in Para 18

It is worth noting that the bench notes in para 18 that, “We are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in reducing the compensation granted by the MACT. In a recent decision in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha 2025 INSC 1244, involving a similar factual situation in which the deceased minor was 6 years old, this Court fixed the child’s daily income at Rs. 223/- and, by referring to the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it prescribed the wages payable to a skilled worker for the year 2014. Consequently, the monthly income was calculated at Rs. 6,690/-, and the deceased’s annual income was taken as Rs. 80,280/- (6,690 × 12). After adding 40% towards future prospects, the annual income was assessed as Rs 112,392/- (80,280 + 32,112). Upon deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency was determined as Rs. 56,196. Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency was computed as Rs. 1,011,528/-. Applying the same to the instant case, the compensation is required to be recalculated as an amount of Rs. 1,011,528/- towards loss of dependency, an amount of Rs. 96,800/- towards loss of consortium, an amount of Rs. 18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,150/- towards funeral expenses.”

Compensation Breakdown

Category	Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency	10,11,528
Loss of Consortium	96,800
Loss of Estate	18,150
Funeral Expenses	18,150

Bench Directions in Para 19

Adding more to it, the Bench then as a corollary directs and holds in para. 19 that, “In this view of the matter, the appellant(s) will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,144,628/- and the amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today.”

Bench Records in Para 21

As an aside, the Bench then graciously records in para 21 that, “We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr Mamidipudi V Mukunda, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae. We direct the Registry to renumber this case as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by changing the cause title to Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath. The Government of India, through the ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development and Road Transport and Highways, is impleaded as a party in person. We request Mr K.M. Nataraj, ASG, to assist the court.”

Bench Conclusion in Para 22

Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 22 that, “The appeal(s) and pending application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.”

Key Takeaways

• MACT initially awarded Rs. 782,000/- with 6% interest.
• The High Court reduced compensation to Rs. 470,000/-.
• The Supreme Court recalculated compensation to Rs. 1,144,628/-.
• Government ministries impleaded as parties in person.
• Case re-numbered under Article 32: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.