The Fundamental right to walk received constitutional recognition after the Supreme Court declared that every citizen has the right to walk safely on well-maintained and demarcated footpaths. The Court held that pedestrian rights must take priority over the movement of motorised vehicles. Furthermore, the Fundamental right to walk forms an essential part of the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. While deciding a motor accident compensation appeal involving the death of a five-year-old child, the Bench directed the Registry to re-register the matter as a petition under Article 32 titled “Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath” to develop a comprehensive legal framework for pedestrian rights.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment on June 19, 2026, in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 4665-4666 of 2025.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a tragic road accident in which a tanker struck and killed the appellant’s five-year-old son while the child’s father was walking him to school at around 9 a.m.
Importantly, the Court noted that authorities had provided neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing at the accident site.
The father sought compensation of ₹25 lakh before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal awarded ₹7.82 lakh with 6% annual interest.
Later, both the father and the insurance company challenged the award. The High Court dismissed the father’s appeal but allowed the insurer’s appeal, reducing the compensation to ₹4.70 lakh. Consequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Court Recognises Walking as a Fundamental Right
The Supreme Court used the case to address the broader issue of pedestrian rights.
According to the Bench, India had failed to adequately recognise the right to walk despite its close connection with Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
The Court clarified that freedom of movement does not merely mean travelling in motor vehicles.
It observed:
“The primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk.”
Therefore, the Court held that access to safe and properly demarcated footpaths forms part of the constitutional guarantee.
Moreover, it ruled that pedestrian movement must receive priority over motorised traffic.
Authorities Must Provide and Maintain Footpaths
The Bench held that urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats have a legal duty to create and maintain pedestrian infrastructure.
Accordingly, wherever roads exist, authorities must also provide safe and properly maintained footpaths.
The Court further observed:
“The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall override the privilege of a motorised vehicle.”
It added that urban planning has become excessively vehicle-centric and must restore balance by protecting pedestrians.
Walking Reflects Multiple Constitutional Freedoms
The Court explained that walking represents more than physical movement.
It connects with freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), and 19(1)(d). It also promotes the constitutional duty under Article 51A to preserve the ideals of the freedom movement.
Additionally, the Bench referred to Nagar Sankirtan, Pandharpur Wari, Kanwar Yatra, the Dandi March, and Vinoba Bhave’s Bhoodan Movement to illustrate the historical and cultural significance of walking.
Therefore, public spaces cannot remain exclusive to motor vehicles.
Court Calls for a Dedicated Law
The Bench noted that Parliament has enacted specific laws protecting education, food security, and information rights.
However, no dedicated legislation currently safeguards pedestrian rights.
Accordingly, the Court recommended a law that would define the right, identify duty bearers, establish remedies, and create an independent regulator.
It directed the Registry to send copies of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways.
The Court also forwarded the judgment to the Law Commission for examining an appropriate statutory framework.
Motor Vehicles Act Does Not Protect Pedestrian Rights
The Court clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mainly regulates vehicles, licences, permits, insurance, and accident claims.
Although the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 impose certain duties on drivers toward pedestrians, they do not recognise an enforceable right to walk.
Therefore, the existing legal framework remains inadequate for protecting pedestrian rights.
Independent Remedies Available
The Bench held that citizens can seek constitutional and statutory remedies if authorities violate their right to walk.
Besides remedies under the Constitution, affected persons may invoke Sections 38 to 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats.
Supreme Court Enhances Compensation
The Court also found that the High Court wrongly reduced the compensation awarded by the MACT.
Relying on Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha (2025), it recalculated the compensation.
The Bench awarded ₹10,11,528 for loss of dependency, ₹96,800 for loss of consortium, ₹18,150 for loss of estate, and ₹18,150 for funeral expenses.
As a result, the total compensation increased to ₹11,44,628, payable within two months.
Matter Re-Registered Under Article 32
Finally, the Court appreciated the assistance of Amicus Curiae Mr. Mamidipudi V. Mukunda.
It directed the Registry to re-register the matter as “Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath” under Article 32.
The Bench also impleaded the Union Government through the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways.
Furthermore, it requested Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj to assist the Court in the proceedings.
With these directions, the Court disposed of the appeals and all pending applications without any order as to costs.
