Supreme Court declares right to walk on footpath a fundamental right, wants law
Apex court says walking powered the freedom struggle, politics and social reforms, but is yet to be recognised as a fundamental right; asks government to frame a law to protect pedestrians
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The has declared the right to walk on demarcated and well-maintained footpaths a fundamental right, overriding the privileges of motorized vehicles. The judgment, authored by Justice P.S. Narasimha, stemmed from a case involving the death of a young boy due to a road accident. The Court recognized this right under of the and highlighted the inadequacies of the , calling for a comprehensive statutory framework and regulatory body to enforce this right.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This judgment significantly expands the interpretation of Fundamental Rights within Part III of the Constitution. The explicitly linked the right to walk with , which guarantees citizens the right "to move freely throughout the territory of India." Furthermore, by describing walking as inextricably connected to life, the Court implicitly invoked (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). The Court also imaginatively connected walking to other freedoms, noting it embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights under , , and . This showcases judicial activism and dynamic interpretation, where constitutional courts adapt the text to address contemporary challenges—in this case, the marginalization of pedestrians in urban spaces. UPSC candidates should analyze this expansion of Article 19 and its implications for urban planning laws.
Governance
The ruling underscores a significant gap in current legislative frameworks and administrative priorities. The Court criticized the for being vehicle-centric, treating human interests as merely incidental. This highlights the need for citizen-centric governance in infrastructure development. The Court has directed the ministries (like the and ) and the to examine the necessity of a new legal framework. This proposed framework must identify duty-bearers (municipal authorities), provide remedies for violations, and establish a dedicated regulatory body. The judgment emphasizes that building wide roads at the expense of pedestrian safety is flawed urban planning and that providing a well-maintained footpath is an enforceable duty of municipal authorities.
Social
The judgment addresses the social equity dimension of urban mobility. The Court rightly observed that prioritizing motorized transport often stems from elitism, marginalizing the "not-so-fortunate" who rely on walking. Walking is positioned not just as a mode of transport but as a crucial social activity with deep cultural, religious, and political roots (referencing its role in the freedom struggle). The lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups like children (as seen in the case that prompted this ruling), the elderly, and lower-income individuals. This ruling forces a re-evaluation of urban spaces, advocating for inclusive infrastructure where common spaces are not monopolized by motorized vehicles. The UPSC Mains could feature questions on the socio-economic impacts of car-centric urban planning and how this judgment promotes sustainable and equitable urban mobility.