Back
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Identify Authority for Footpaths in Five Cities
The took another significant step on Monday to enforce its landmark June judgment declaring the on demarcated footpaths a . A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe directed the to identify a responsible for ensuring that every road in the country is accompanied by a well-maintained, encroachment-free footpath. Additionally, the Court ordered the to propose five towns for a where these directions will be implemented as a model for the rest of the nation.
The matter was heard in the context of monitoring compliance with the Court's verdict, which held that the —integral to the under , read with , (b), and (c), as well as —imposes a correlative duty on urban development authorities, municipal corporations, and panchayats to construct and maintain footpaths. The Court had further stated that any violation of this right entitles citizens to seek , including , independent of under the .
The Quest for a Single Responsible Authority
During the hearing,
appeared on behalf of the Centre. The bench pressed him on the need for a single, effective body that could oversee the nationwide provision of footpaths.
"First of all, there needs to be a
which will do the planning,"
Justice Narasimha observed.
"Number 2, identifying and implementing it as a
. The authority must have the space, infrastructure, human resources and funds, which means it has to be a viable working authority."
The Court's order explicitly recorded the requirement:
"We direct the
to identify the authority which would be responsible for implementing the need for establishing the footpath. Such authority, if not in existence or identified within the statutory framework, then such an authority could be established. It is necessary that such an authority have all the wherewithal in terms of infrastructure, space, human resources, and funds available."
This directive reflects the judiciary's frustration with the fragmented responsibility that currently plagues urban infrastructure. Often, footpaths fall between the jurisdictions of municipal corporations, state public works departments, and traffic police, leading to encroachments, poor maintenance, and a complete absence of pedestrian infrastructure in many cities. By insisting on a with sufficient resources, the Court aims to create a clear line of accountability.
in Five Towns
The bench also expressed its desire to test the framework on a smaller scale before rolling it out nationwide. It directed the Centre to identify five towns where the
for
"provisioning footpaths wherever roads exist"
could commence. Justice Narasimha told ASG Nataraj,
"Which will be that
, you tell us. The authority should have the funds, staff (and) infrastructure. Secondly, tell us about five cities where you can have the
."
The Court has listed the matter for further hearing after three weeks, giving the Centre time to return with concrete proposals. The success of this will likely inform the broader implementation strategy and set benchmarks for other urban local bodies.
Legal Implications: A Broadened Scope of Fundamental Rights
The Supreme Court's June judgment was already a watershed moment for pedestrian rights in India. By locating the within the tapestry of fundamental rights under , the Court elevated pedestrian infrastructure from a mere civic amenity to a . The Monday hearing builds on that foundation by requiring the executive to create institutional machinery to give effect to these rights.
Legal experts note that the Court's insistence on a
with
"adequate infrastructure, space, human resources and funds"
signals that mere policy declarations will not suffice. The duty bearers—urban development authorities, municipalities, and even panchayats—must now face potential
for failing to provide footpaths. The independent remedy of
, separate from the
, opens the door for
and individual claims seeking damages for inadequate footpaths.
Furthermore, the Court's directive aligns with a series of earlier pronouncements. In , a bench of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had issued directions for unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths. A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala has also been monitoring pedestrian safety issues, including helmet use and wrong-lane driving. Collectively, these cases indicate that the judiciary is moving towards a holistic recognition of pedestrian rights as an essential component of the .
Broader Impact on Urban Planning and Governance
For urban planners, the judgment imposes a paradigm shift. Roads are typically designed primarily for vehicular traffic, with footpaths treated as secondary or optional. The Supreme Court has now mandated that the footpath is primary, and the road is secondary. This inversion will require changes in engineering standards, budget allocations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Municipal corporations will have to audit existing road networks, identify missing footpaths, and allocate funds for construction and maintenance. The in five towns will test the feasibility of these requirements and may lead to model bye-laws that other cities can adopt. Additionally, the —once identified—will likely coordinate with state governments and local bodies to ensure uniformity in design standards, such as width, material, ramps for disabled access, and prohibition of encroachments.
The Court's order also has implications for ongoing infrastructure projects under the and the . These schemes already emphasise non-motorised transport, but the constitutional mandate adds legal teeth to ensure compliance. Citizens can now approach courts if footpaths are absent or poorly maintained, citing violation of their .
Challenges Ahead
Despite the progressive direction, several challenges remain. Identifying a is itself a complex task—should it be the , the , or a newly created independent regulator? The Court has given the Centre flexibility, but the chosen body must have territorial jurisdiction over all roads, including those under state control. Otherwise, the authority's powers could be contested.
Moreover, funding remains a critical issue. Indian municipalities are often cash-strapped, and footpath construction may compete with other pressing needs like water supply and sanitation. The Court's emphasis on adequate funds suggests that the Centre may need to create a dedicated financial mechanism, perhaps through the or a new central scheme.
Another challenge is encroachment. Footpaths in many cities are occupied by street vendors, parked vehicles, and even permanent structures. Removing encroachments will require sensitive rehabilitation policies and robust enforcement. The Court's earlier orders on street vending and the need for designated vending zones may provide a framework, but implementation on the ground is often slow.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's latest directive to the Centre marks a crucial step in transforming the to walk from a paper declaration into a lived reality. By demanding a and a in five towns, the Court is forcing the executive to create an actionable roadmap. The next hearing, scheduled after three weeks, will reveal the Centre's response. For the legal community, the case reinforces the expanding horizon of fundamental rights and the judiciary's role in ensuring that constitutional promises are backed by institutional accountability. As urban India continues to grow, the right to a safe, unobstructed footpath is no longer a luxury—it is a .
