The Supreme Court has declared that the right to walk is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, holding that citizens are entitled to safe, demarcated, and well-maintained footpaths.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has ruled that this right takes precedence over the movement of motorized vehicles and directed the Union Government to consider creating a comprehensive legal framework to protect pedestrian rights.
BUY NOW: Supreme Court Judgements E-Compilation – May 2026
The case arose from the tragic death of a five-year-old child who was fatally struck by a tanker while walking to school with his father.
The case stemmed from an accident in which a tanker hit a young boy from behind while he was walking with his father to school. The impact crushed the child’s lower body, resulting in his death. The Court noted that there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing at the location of the accident.
While deciding the compensation dispute arising from the accident, the Bench expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine a larger constitutional issue concerning pedestrian rights and access to public roads.
The Supreme Court observed that the constitutional guarantee of free movement under Article 19(1)(d) has traditionally been viewed through the lens of vehicular mobility, overlooking the more basic human activity of walking.
The Court held that the primary right of movement is the right to walk, which predates movement through vehicles and must necessarily include access to safe and demarcated footpaths. It emphasized that the right to walk is inseparably linked with the right to life under Article 21 and also connects with freedoms of expression, assembly, and association guaranteed under Article 19.
According to the Court, pedestrians have been pushed to the margins by motorized transport, resulting in unsafe roads and inadequate walking infrastructure. The judgment stressed that this imbalance must be corrected through constitutional recognition of pedestrian rights.
In one of the most significant findings of the judgment, the Court declared that if a road exists, there must also be a corresponding obligation to provide and maintain footpaths.
The Bench stated that urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats have a legal duty to ensure the existence and maintenance of pedestrian infrastructure. The Court characterized this obligation as an enforceable public duty rather than a matter of administrative discretion.
The judgment noted that a well-demarcated and uninterrupted footpath can transform cities and towns by ensuring equitable access to public spaces and enhancing safety for citizens.
The Court made a significant distinction between pedestrian rights and the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
According to the Bench, the Motor Vehicles Act is fundamentally centered on regulating vehicles, drivers, permits, registrations, insurance, and transport systems. While the Act contains provisions requiring drivers to exercise caution toward pedestrians, it does not recognize or protect a fundamental right to walk on safe footpaths.
The Court observed that pedestrians have historically occupied only an incidental position under the motor vehicle regulatory regime and that Parliament has not yet enacted legislation specifically safeguarding the constitutional right to walk.
Recognizing the absence of a statutory framework, the Supreme Court urged the creation of dedicated legislation to protect pedestrian rights.
The Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, as well as to the Law Commission of India, for consideration of a legal framework that would: formally recognize the right to walk; identify public authorities responsible for implementation; provide remedies for violations; and establish a full-time regulatory authority dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure and rights.
The Bench emphasized that such a regulator would ensure institutional expertise, accountability, transparency, and long-term planning for pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.
The Supreme Court further clarified that citizens whose right to walk on safe footpaths is violated can seek constitutional and legal remedies independent of claims available under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court held that restitutionary remedies may be pursued against urban development authorities, municipalities, municipal corporations, and panchayats for failure to discharge their duties relating to pedestrian infrastructure. Such remedies may include compensation and enforcement of public duties through constitutional and statutory mechanisms.
Apart from the constitutional issues, the Court also examined the compensation awarded to the family of the deceased child.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had originally awarded ₹7.82 lakh, while the High Court subsequently reduced the amount to ₹4.70 lakh. The Supreme Court found the reduction unjustified and relied upon its earlier decision in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha to reassess the compensation.
Applying the principles laid down in that decision, the Court recalculated the compensation by considering notional income, future prospects, loss of dependency, consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. Consequently, the compensation payable to the family was enhanced to ₹11.44 lakh, with directions that the amount be paid within two months.
The Court concluded by formally declaring the right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution and includes the right to access demarcated footpaths. This right enjoys priority over motorized vehicular movement. Public authorities have a corresponding duty to create, maintain, and safeguard pedestrian infrastructure. Violations of pedestrian rights can give rise to constitutional and legal remedies, including claims for restitution and compensation independent of motor accident compensation proceedings.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Corp. Commissioner’s Power to Dismiss Municipal Officers
