The Right to Walk has officially been elevated to a fundamental right in India, outranking the right of way of every motorized vehicle on the road.

Every morning, millions of Indians step onto roads that were never built with them in mind — walking on the edge of traffic, dodging vehicles parked across the only available footpath, crossing under flyovers with no signal or zebra crossing. For decades, this has simply been accepted as the cost of life in a developing country.

On 19 June 2026, the Supreme Court said this can no longer continue. In Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., a Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the Right to Walk on a safe, demarcated footpath flows from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. As an advocate who handles motor accident claims for pedestrians pushed into harm's way, I view this as a truly historic shift in city accountability.

Case Snapshot

What Led to This Judgment

The ruling arose from tragic facts: a five-year-old child was struck and killed by a tanker while walking to school with his father, on a stretch of road with no footpath and no pedestrian crossing. After the High Court reduced the family's compensation, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court enhanced the award to ₹11.44 lakh and, more significantly, converted the case into a larger constitutional inquiry into pedestrian rights and infrastructure nationwide.

The Core Holding: A Constitutionally Guarded Right to Walk

The Court held that the legal Right to Walk on a demarcated footpath rests on two constitutional guarantees working together — freedom of movement under Article 19, and the right to life and dignity under Article 21.

What makes this remarkable is the priority assigned to it: this right does not merely co-exist with vehicular traffic, it overrides it. Where a road exists, a footpath is no longer optional infrastructure — it is a constitutional entitlement with an enforceable duty on the State.

The Bench also observed that Indian urban planning has long been vehicle-centric, pushing walkers to the margins. They noted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself has operated as an impediment to recognising this right — a clear signal that future structural reforms may require a dedicated pedestrian-rights statute.

Who Is Now Legally Responsible?

A right without a duty-bearer is just a sentiment. The Court named exactly which authorities are constitutionally obligated to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths:

1. Urban Development Authorities — for incorporating pedestrian infrastructure into city planning.
2. Municipal Corporations — for construction and encroachment-free maintenance in metros.
3. Municipalities — bearing the same duty in smaller towns.
4. Panchayats — extending the duty into rural local government.

What Remedies Does This Create?

This is the part with the most immediate consequence for citizens. A violation of the right to walk safely gives rise to an independent cause of action, separate from a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A victim forced onto the carriageway by a missing or broken footpath can now pursue a writ petition or civil suit against the responsible civic body, in addition to any claim against the vehicle involved — a dual-track remedy that substantially strengthens pedestrian victims' legal position.

Directions to the Government

The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law Commission of India and concerned Union Ministries to consider dedicated legislation on pedestrian rights and enforcement, suggested a regulatory body to implement the right nationwide, and converted the matter into a continuing proceeding to examine pedestrian infrastructure across India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Closing Thoughts

This judgment extends a long line of Article 21 cases — from livelihood to a clean environment to privacy — but it has a rare quality: it speaks to something every Indian does daily, regardless of income or geography. Walking is not a privilege of the poor who cannot afford a vehicle, nor a leisure activity of the well-heeled — it is, as the Court itself observed, inextricably connected to ordinary life.

What remains is implementation: declarations of rights are only as strong as the political will behind them, and the real test will be whether India's chronically under-funded municipal corporations can be made to treat footpaths with the urgency once reserved for highways. Our task as practitioners now is to ensure this right is actively invoked by citizens and lawyers alike, to demand the walkable, safe cities the Constitution now guarantees.