The Right to Walk on Footpaths — From ‘Shelter’ to ‘Constitutional Right’
Riyasat IAS Mentorship Team
Updated 19 Jul 2026
5 min read
The Right to Walk on Footpaths — From ‘Shelter’ to ‘Constitutional Right’
GS Paper 2 │ Article 21 │ DPSP Article 39(b) │ Judicial Activism │ Urban Governance │ Pedestrian Rights
Why in the News / Context A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Maniar Iliyas v. P. Ayyappan. The Court explicitly reframed the concept of a footpath: it is not merely a narrow strip of land where the economically disadvantaged shelter from speeding vehicles, but a symbol of civic civilisation and social equality. Safe pedestrian infrastructure, the Court held, holds ‘priority over transit by motor vehicles.’
Key Highlights of the Judgment
1. ‘The Joy of Walking’ as a Basic Right
The Court pulled the definition of a footpath out of the narrow frame of ‘accident prevention’ and placed it within the broader constitutional value of human dignity and civic freedom.
Safe, accessible pedestrian walkways are evidence of how much a society respects the freedom of its citizens — not merely a road-safety measure.
The Court emphasised that pedestrian access holds explicit priority over vehicle movement in public spaces.
2. ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ in Urban Planning
The Court invoked the concept of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ from environmental law — the degradation of a shared resource due to unchecked individual self-interest. India’s urban footpaths are experiencing precisely this tragedy:
Encroachment by vehicle parking (including institutionalised cases such as police vehicles in Bengaluru)
Illegal commercial vending without adequate designated alternatives
Garbage dumping and construction material obstruction, reducing footpaths to unusable strips
3. Constitutional Basis — Articles 21 and 39(b)
Article 21 (Right to Life): Walking safely on public infrastructure is an extension of the Right to Life with Dignity — a right the Court has been progressively expanding since the 1970s.
Article 39(b) (DPSP): This Directive Principle requires that material resources of the community be distributed to best serve the common good. Roads and footpaths are vital common resources — their design and allocation must prioritise pedestrian interests, especially those of the economically vulnerable who cannot afford private vehicles.
Legal Gaps Identified
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This law was historically oriented toward ensuring the smooth flow of vehicular traffic, inadvertently marginalising pedestrian rights in both its design and enforcement.
Accountability Gap: While managing footpaths is the legal responsibility of municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats, systematic neglect of this duty has gone largely unpunished.
The Court’s Institutional Framework — Beyond Declaration
The Court did not stop at declaring a right — it proposed a comprehensive institutional architecture to give that right operational reality:
Dedicated Legislation: Parliament and state legislatures should enact a specific Act protecting footpath infrastructure — analogous to the Right to Education Act as an enforcement mechanism for a fundamental right.
Full-Time Independent Regulator: Just as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights enforces Article 21A (Right to Education), a dedicated independent body should safeguard pedestrian rights and provide grievance resolution.
Law Commission Directive: The Supreme Court forwarded copies of the judgment to the Law Commission of India and relevant central ministries to initiate a statutory framework.
UPSC Note UPSC Mains linkage: This judgment connects GS 2 (Fundamental Rights — Article 21, DPSPs — Article 39(b), judicial activism, urban governance) with GS 1 (urbanisation challenges) and GS 3 (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities). The ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ framing and the analogy with the Right to Education Act are high-value analytical angles for any answer on urban governance or rights expansion.
Practice Question (Mains)“The Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to walk safely on footpaths as part of the Right to Life (Article 21) reflects a broader judicial shift toward human-centric urban governance.” Examine this statement in the context of India’s urbanisation challenges and the constitutional provisions relevant to pedestrian rights. (250 Words, 15 Marks)
Practice Question (Prelims – MCQ)With reference to the Supreme Court judgment on pedestrian rights on footpaths, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court held that pedestrian access on footpaths holds priority over motor vehicle transit in public spaces. 2. The Court invoked Article 39(b) of the Constitution to argue that roads and footpaths, as material resources of the community, must be designed to serve the common good. 3. The Court recommended enacting a dedicated legislation for footpath protection, analogous to the Right to Education Act. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (A) 1 and 2 only (B) 2 and 3 only (C) 1 and 3 only (D) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (D) 1, 2 and 3 — All three statements accurately reflect the key holdings of the Supreme Court judgment: the priority of pedestrian access over vehicle transit, the invocation of Article 39(b) as a constitutional basis, and the recommendation for dedicated footpath legislation on the model of the Right to Education Act.
