In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has declared that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that this right is primary and must take precedence over the movement of motorised transport. Alongside this structural declaration, the Court set aside a High Court order that had reduced the compensation awarded to a grieving father for the death of his five-year-old son in a road accident, recalculating and enhancing the final compensation to Rs 11,44,628.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a tragic accident where the appellant was walking with his five-year-old son at 9:00 AM to drop him at a nearby school. A tanker striking from behind crushed the child’s waist and lower body, leading to his death. There was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing at the site of the incident.
The appellant filed a claim petition seeking Rs 25,00,000 in compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), by its award dated May 30, 2016, granted Rs 7,82,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. On appeal by both the appellant and the insurance company, the High Court dismissed the father’s appeal and allowed the insurer’s appeal, reducing the compensation to Rs 4,70,000. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Analysis on the “Right to Walk”
The Supreme Court began its analysis by addressing the systemic neglect of pedestrians on public roads. The Court remarked that such tragedies are routinely transformed into FIRs and motor accident claims without addressing the core structural issues.
Analyzing Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, the Court rejected the premise that “movement” is restricted only to vehicular transport. Writing for the bench, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed:
“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 footpath. The citizen’s fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.”
The Court traced the cultural, social, religious, and political significance of walking in India, citing historical and social movements such as:
- The Nagar Sankirtan (neighborhood processions reclaiming public spaces)
- The Pandharpur Wari (an 800-year-old pilgrimage dissolving caste hierarchies)
- The Kanwar Yatra (an annual monsoon trek of physical penance)
- The Dandi March (Mahatma Gandhi’s 241-mile padayatra of anti-colonial resistance)
- The Bhoodan Movement (Vinoba Bhave’s 70,000 km walk to persuade land redistribution)
The Court noted that walking embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(c), and access to public spaces must not become a monopoly of the motorized class.
Legislative Gap and Comparison with Other Rights
The Court observed that while other fundamental rights have been systematically effectuated through dedicated statutes—such as the Right to Education Act, 2009 (protecting Article 21A), the National Food Security Act, 2013 (protecting Article 21), and the Right to Information Act—there is no legislation securing the right to walk on demarcated footpaths.
The Court pointed out that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is built around the “vehicle” as its subject, making human interests merely incidental. Even the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, only provide guiding principles for drivers rather than creating enforceable pedestrian rights. The Court stated:
“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.”
The Court clarified that if a citizen’s right to walk on a demarcated footpath is violated, they are entitled to an independent restitutionary remedy under the Constitution or Sections 38–40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, against municipal and local authorities.
Recalculation of Compensation
Referring to its previous ruling in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha (2025 INSC 1244), which involved the death of a six-year-old minor, the Court recalculated the compensation.
Applying the daily wage of a skilled worker in 2014 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Rs 223 per day), the Court computed the monthly income at Rs 6,690 and annual income at Rs 80,280. It added 40% for future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18, arriving at a loss of dependency of Rs 10,11,528. Adding consortium, estate loss, and funeral expenses, the total compensation was fixed at Rs 11,44,628, to be paid within two months.
Court’s Declarations and Directives
In conclusion, the Supreme Court declared and ordered the following:
- The right to walk, including the right to demarcated footpaths, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) read with Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c), and 21, and holds priority over motorized vehicles.
- Local bodies (urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats) have a correlative and enforceable duty to construct and maintain footpaths wherever a road exists.
- Citizens can pursue constitutional and legal restitutionary remedies against duty-bearers for violations, independent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- The Registry was directed to send copies of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, as well as the Law Commission of India, to initiate a formal legal framework.
- The Registry was ordered to re-number the case as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, titled Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath, impleading the Government of India ministries to continue monitoring the issue.
Case Details:
Case Title: Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). 4665-4666/2025
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: June 19, 2026
