Walking a fundamental right, footpath must for all roads: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declared the right to walk on a demarcated footpath a fundamental right, holding it to be integral to the constitutional right to free move...

What Happened

The Supreme Court declared the right to walk on a demarcated footpath a fundamental right, holding it to be integral to the constitutional right to free movement and the right to life.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar held that a citizen's right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and must have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
The Court identified urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats as "duty bearers" obliged to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other pedestrian infrastructure.
The judgment held that violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths entitles citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation — independent of remedies available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Court urged the enactment of a law mandating well-demarcated footpaths on all roads, framing pedestrian safety as a matter of constitutional entitlement rather than administrative discretion.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over decades of judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has expansively read Article 21 to include a wide range of unenumerated rights that are essential components of a dignified life. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court held that the procedure depriving a person of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable — not arbitrary. This reading opened the door for derivative rights to be read into Article 21.

Article 21 has been used to recognise rights such as: right to health, right to livelihood (limited), right to education (later codified), right to shelter, right to a clean environment, right to speedy trial, and right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): landmark case that linked Articles 14, 19, and 21 — any law or state action affecting these rights must satisfy all three
The right to walk, framed as integral to life and free movement, is now part of this expanding cluster of Article 21 rights

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court grounded the right to walk in Article 21 (right to life), extending the established tradition of reading unenumerated fundamental rights into this provision.

Article 19(1)(d): Right to Move Freely Throughout the Territory of India

Article 19(1)(d) guarantees every citizen the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. This is one of six freedoms in Article 19(1) and can be restricted only under Article 19(5) by a law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. The Supreme Court has linked this right to pedestrian movement and access to public spaces.

Article 19(1)(d) is a citizen's right; non-citizens cannot invoke it
Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5): must be by law, must be reasonable, and must be in the interests of the general public or for protection of Scheduled Tribe interests
The Court read Article 19(1)(d) together with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) — freedom of speech, assembly, association — all of which require physical movement to be meaningful
Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d) together form the constitutional basis for the right to walk

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court explicitly read the right to walk as flowing from Article 19(1)(d) (free movement) together with Article 21 (right to life), creating a composite constitutional basis for pedestrian rights.

Urban Local Bodies and Constitutional Obligations

The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 inserted Part IX-A into the Constitution, establishing the constitutional framework for urban local bodies (ULBs). It added Articles 243P to 243ZG and the Twelfth Schedule, which lists 18 functions that may be devolved to municipalities, including urban planning, regulation of land use, and public health and sanitation. ULBs have the mandate — though not always the capacity or will — to provide and maintain pedestrian infrastructure.

74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992: inserted Part IX-A (Articles 243P–243ZG) and the Twelfth Schedule
Twelfth Schedule, Entry 6: includes public health, sanitation conservancy, and solid waste management
Twelfth Schedule, Entry 1 and 2: urban planning including town planning and regulation of land use
Municipalities are state subjects (Entry 5, List II — State List); Parliament's law on ULBs is framework legislation, not direct command
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: the Court clarified that pedestrian rights are independent of and not displaced by remedies under this Act

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court identified ULBs — urban development authorities, municipal corporations, and panchayats — as the primary "duty bearers" for pedestrian infrastructure, anchoring the obligation in the 74th Amendment framework.

Key Facts & Data

Constitutional basis: Article 21 (right to life) + Article 19(1)(d) (free movement) — read together
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar
Duty bearers identified: urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, panchayats
Remedy: citizens may seek restitution and compensation against duty bearers; independent of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992: inserted Part IX-A and the Twelfth Schedule — constitutional mandate for urban local bodies
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): established that Articles 14, 19, and 21 must be read together — any state action must satisfy all three
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Supreme Court recognised right to privacy under Article 21 — part of the same expanding jurisprudence
The Court called for enactment of a dedicated law mandating footpaths on all roads