SC Rules Walking on Footpaths is Fundamental Right: A New Paradigm for Urban Governance

In a landmark judicial intervention that seeks to redefine the relationship between urban infrastructure and the average citizen, the Supreme Court of India has formally declared the "right to walk" as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar, marks a significant departure from decades of motor-centric urban planning, asserting that the convenience of motorized transport cannot supersede the basic human right to navigate public spaces safely.

The Civilizational Problem of Urban Mobility At the heart of the litigation— Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz vs. P. Ayyappan —lies a stinging critique of modern urban development. The Court described the current state of pedestrian infrastructure not merely as a technical failure, but as a "civilizational problem." For years, the rapid proliferation of motorized vehicles has skewed the priorities of urban planners, often at the expense of those who rely on foot.

The Court noted with lament that the focus of municipal authorities has been almost exclusively on creating roads suitable for vehicles, effectively treating pedestrians as a nuisance. As the bench observed, "It is rather strange that we fail to focus on recognising and securing the right to walk. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal authorities were busy creating roads that were suitable for motorized people." This motor-centric bias is not just an aesthetic or planning oversight; the Court identified it as a systemic, exclusionary practice that has historically favored the wealthy, while pushing the common walker to the margins of road safety.

Constitutional Supremacy over Legislative Impediments One of the most consequential aspects of this ruling is the Court’s stance on the Motor Vehicles Act. While this statute serves as the primary governing framework for traffic and vehicle operation, the Court has unequivocally stripped it of any authority to overshadow constitutional guarantees.

" Motor Vehicles Act has not been and has never been a statute that recognized the fundamental right to walk," the Court stated. The bench held that the Act has, in practice, functioned as an "impediment" that undermines the agency of pedestrians. By anchoring the right to walk within the Constitution, the Supreme Court has created a hierarchy of rights where pedestrian safety is primary. This means that whenever there is a conflict between the fluidity of vehicular movement and the safety/accessibility of a pedestrian, the pedestrian's right to occupy and transit through a demarcated footpath must take precedence.

The Duty Bearers and Institutional Accountability The judgment does not stop at abstract recognition; it codifies a clear, enforceable duty for local governance institutions. The Court identified urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and even panchayats as the primary "duty bearers" responsible for the state of our streets.

Under the Court’s mandate, these entities now bear a proactive legal obligation to: 1. Demarcate: Clearly define footpaths that are separate from the main carriage for motorized traffic. 2. Construct: Ensure that pedestrian infrastructure is built to a standard that guarantees safety and accessibility. 3. Maintain: Continuously keep these spaces in a condition that allows for their intended use. 4. Safeguard: Ensure that footpaths are not encroached upon or misused, preventing the "subjugation" of these spaces to vehicular parking or other obstacles.

The Court poignantly described walking as a practice that remains "invisible to the light," implying that because it is a routine, non-machine-assisted activity, it has been ignored by those holding administrative power. By bringing it into the judicial fold as a fundamental right, the Court has effectively "illuminated" this necessity, making it impossible for municipal bodies to claim a lack of budgetary priority as an excuse for the absence of safe sidewalks.

Constitutional Remedies: Beyond the Traffic Statutes Perhaps the most significant legal development for practitioners is the Court's ruling on the nature of judicial remedies. If a citizen’s right to walk is violated—due to the absence of a footpath, hazardous conditions, or blatant disregard for pedestrian space—they are no longer confined to the remedial frameworks set out in the Motor Vehicles Act, which are often limited to accident-related claims.

Instead, the Court has opened the door for constitutional remedies. This allows citizens to seek both restitution and compensation through the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts or the Supreme Court against the defaulting municipal authorities. By delineating these remedies as "independent" of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court has acknowledged that the injury suffered by a pedestrian is not merely a traffic accident issue, but a violation of a fundamental, constitutional entitlement. This is an invitation to legal professionals to bring more strategic, public-interest-oriented litigation against urban bodies for systemic neglect.

Impact on Legal Practice For the legal community, this judgment signals a shift in the nature of "road law." Litigation surrounding urban infrastructure will no longer be limited to collision disputes or insurance claims. We are likely to see an increase in mandamus petitions, where citizens compel municipal corporations to maintain basic levels of pedestrian safety.

Attorneys representing municipalities and urban development authorities must now prepare for a higher standard of "due diligence." The burden of proof has shifted; it is no longer enough to demonstrate that a road is compliant with traffic laws; the authority must now demonstrate that it has actively safeguarded the interests of the pedestrian. Failure to provide a demarcated footpath is now effectively a failure to uphold a protected individual's constitutional liberty under Article 19(1)(d).

Conclusion: A Walk Toward Accountability The Supreme Court, by declaring that "the fundamental right to walk will take within itself the right to demarcated footpaths," has provided a powerful tool for civic advocacy and legal recourse. This judgment signifies a profound cultural shift, forcing us to rethink the design of our cities. It challenges the "elitism" that assumes the primary user of the road is the person in a car, insisting instead that the most basic form of human transport—walking—deserves the highest level of constitutional protection.

As municipal bodies across the country digest this mandate, the focus of urban planning must fundamentally pivot. The era of the "invisible walker" is ending. With this, we enter a period where every footpath, every street crossing, and every pavement becomes a site of potential legal and governmental accountability. For a lawyer, the case of Maniyar Iliyaz Shaik Riyaz serves as a reminder that the Constitution is not a static document, but a living safeguard for the most fundamental activities of daily life. The road to equality, it seems, begins with a well-maintained, demarcated, and safe place for everyone to walk.