In a landmark ruling that could reshape the way Indian cities are planned and governed, the Supreme Court has declared that the right to walk on a properly demarcated footpath is a fundamental constitutional right. The judgment places pedestrians at the centre of urban mobility and makes it clear that roads are not meant exclusively for vehicles.
The Court held that the freedom to walk is inseparable from the right to move freely across the country under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. Extending that principle, it ruled that citizens are also entitled to safe, clearly marked and protected footpaths. Importantly, the judges emphasized that this right enjoys precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that walking is woven into everyday life, yet public authorities have long overlooked the needs of pedestrians while designing transport infrastructure. According to the Court, the country’s development model has overwhelmingly favoured vehicles, often pushing walkers to the margins.
In a strongly worded observation, the Bench noted that pedestrians are frequently treated as obstacles rather than rightful users of public roads. The dominance of motor vehicles, it said, has gradually eroded recognition of a person’s basic right to walk safely, reducing footpaths to neglected spaces or, in many cases, eliminating them altogether.
The judgment stressed that recognising the right to walk cannot remain a mere constitutional declaration. It carries corresponding obligations for civic and development authorities. Urban development bodies, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats have been identified as the institutions responsible for creating, maintaining and safeguarding pedestrian infrastructure.
The Court stated that wherever roads exist, authorities must ensure the presence of well-maintained and clearly demarcated footpaths. Safe pedestrian movement, it said, is not an optional civic amenity but a constitutional necessity.
Significantly, the Bench also held that citizens whose right to walk is violated can seek constitutional remedies. Individuals may approach courts for restitution and compensation against authorities that fail in their duties. These remedies, the Court clarified, are separate from any relief available under motor vehicle laws.
The ruling further highlighted that the absence of safe walking spaces is not merely an urban planning lapse but a deeper societal problem that has persisted for decades. By formally recognising the right to walk as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has sought to restore balance between pedestrians and vehicles in public spaces.
Summarising its conclusions, the Court affirmed that the right to walk forms part of the guarantees contained in Part III of the Constitution and encompasses the right to access dedicated footpaths. These rights, it declared, are primary in nature and cannot be subordinated to the convenience of motorised traffic.
The decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for city planning, road design and public infrastructure projects across the country, potentially compelling authorities to rethink transportation policies through the lens of pedestrian safety and constitutional rights.
