Footpath Walking as a Fundamental Right

Footpath Walking as a Fundamental Right

GS Paper 2 │ Article 21 │ Right to Life with Dignity │ Judicial Activism │ Urban Governance

Why in the News? The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark judgment observing that while roads have been widened across Indian cities, no space has been left for citizens who cannot afford vehicles. The Court held that walking is not merely a physical activity but an integral part of the Right to Life with Dignity, and that public spaces cannot remain the exclusive domain of motor vehicles.

Legal and Constitutional Basis

• Article 21 (Right to Life): Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has progressively expanded the scope of the Right to Life. Walking safely on footpaths, free from fear or threat to life, is now read as part of this right.
• Article 19(1)(d) (Freedom of Movement): The right to move freely throughout Indian territory carries real meaning only when citizens can actually walk safely in public spaces.
• A Democratic Right: According to Justice P. S. Narasimha, walking also reinforces the rights to free expression (Article 19(1)(a)), peaceful assembly (19(1)(b)), and forming associations (19(1)(c)). Historically, several major movements of India’s freedom struggle — such as the Dandi March — began with the simple act of walking.

Background: The Karnataka Tragedy

This judgment stems from a deeply tragic incident in Karnataka, where a 5-year-old child was walking to school with his father when a tanker lorry struck and killed him.

• The Court’s Immediate Move: The Court directed compensation of over ₹11 lakh to be paid to the parents.
• The Larger Question: But is compensation alone the solution? The Court emphasised that it is the State’s basic duty to provide safe footpaths to citizens in the first place, so that such tragedies do not occur at all.

Key Challenges in Implementation

1. Lack of Institutional and Infrastructure Framework

• In most Indian cities, continuous, unbroken footpaths either do not exist, or where they do, they are encroached upon by vehicle parking, street vendors, garbage, or construction material.
• Pedestrian safety is currently not governed by any single, unified law — it remains fragmented across municipalities, urban planning bodies, and road design guidelines.

2. The Influence of ‘Elitism’ in Urban Planning

Roads and expressways have largely been constructed as though they exist exclusively for cars and other wheeled vehicles. Pedestrians have effectively been sidelined as ‘obstacles’, even though a massive share of the country’s population — particularly the economically weaker sections — still depends on walking as its primary mode of transport.

3. Conflict with Other Legal Frameworks

• Street Vendors Act, 2014: This law grants street vendors a legal right to livelihood. If footpaths are completely ‘cleared’ to enforce pedestrian rights, the livelihoods of the urban poor could be jeopardised — creating a direct tension between two rights-based frameworks.
• The Limits of Rights-Based Laws: Merely passing a law in India does not automatically change behaviour or culture — much as anti-littering laws exist, yet littering persists as a widespread habit.

The Way Forward

The Supreme Court did not stop at criticism — it laid out a concrete roadmap for governments to follow:

• Establishment of a dedicated, full-time regulatory body for pedestrian infrastructure
• Making ‘well-organised footpaths’ a mandatory component alongside all road construction
• Amending the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to create a clear legal framework for pedestrian safety
• Directives to Ministries: The Court forwarded a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport, so that a statutory framework can be prepared.
• Institutional Expertise: A dedicated regulator is needed that can offer swift resolution in cases of violations and plan pedestrian infrastructure effectively at scale.

UPSC Note UPSC Mains linkage: This judgment connects GS 2 (Fundamental Rights under Article 21 and 19, judicial expansion of rights, urban governance) with GS 3 (urban infrastructure planning) and touches GS 1 (urbanisation challenges). The tension between pedestrian rights and the Street Vendors Act, 2014 is a sophisticated angle for any answer on rights conflicts or urban governance reform.

Practice Question (Mains) “The judiciary’s recent recognition of the ‘right to walk safely on footpaths’ highlights the limitations of ‘rights-based policy making’ in India. Do you think that without adequate budgetary allocation and structural reforms, such judicial directives remain merely a ‘compensation mechanism’? Critically evaluate this statement in the context of the urban poor’s right to livelihood.” (250 Words, 15 Marks)

Practice Question (Prelims – MCQ) With reference to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on the right to walk on footpaths, consider the following statements: 1. The Court held that the right to walk safely on footpaths is part of the Right to Life with Dignity under Article 21. 2. The judgment directed the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to create a statutory framework for pedestrian safety. 3. The Street Vendors Act, 2014 has no bearing on the implementation of pedestrian rights on footpaths. 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: (A) 1 and 2 only — Statement 3 is incorrect: the Street Vendors Act, 2014 directly conflicts with footpath-clearing measures, since it grants street vendors a legal right to livelihood, creating a genuine tension with pedestrian rights enforcement.