Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 710

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz – Appellant
Versus
P. Ayyappan – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Adv. Mr. Mamidipudi Venkatarama Mukunda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Zorawar Singh, Adv. Mr. Jayant Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Shubham, Adv. Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Part III and has priority over motorised vehicles. (!) (!) - Duty bearers include Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats, who must demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths. (!) (!) - Violation of the right to walk entitles citizens to restitution and compensation independent of Motor Vehicles Act remedies; compensation can be awarded against the cited duty bearers. (!) (!) - Compensation in the presented case was recalculated to Rs. 11,44,628/-, with breakdowns for loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses. (!) (!) - A regulatory framework or regulator is proposed to enhance enforcement of the right to walk. (!)

What is the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths and its priority over motorised movement?

What are the duties of duty bearers (Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Panchayats) to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths?

What remedies are available for violation of the right to walk on footpaths, and how is compensation determined?

JUDGMENT

1. 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.

2. Take it for granted, there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing.

3. Accidents like this continue to occur, perhaps they are inevitable till we restructure our rights regime as regards access to roads and recognise their correlative duties. Till then, we will continue to cope with these tragedies by routinely transforming them into FIRs and Motor Accidents Claims. We are not referring to road safety, for this Court is deeply concerned about it and is, in fact, monitoring the implementation of safety guidelines¹ 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 activity- “Walking”. While the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 710

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKARManiyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz – AppellantVersusP. Ayyappan – Respondent

What is the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths and its priority over motorised movement?

What are the duties of duty bearers (Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Panchayats) to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths?

What remedies are available for violation of the right to walk on footpaths, and how is compensation determined?

Cases Referred (4)

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz – Appellant
Versus
P. Ayyappan – Respondent