Currently Empty: ₹0.00
Case Snapshot
Citation: 2026 INSC 647
Civil Appeals: Nos. 4665–4666 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 19 June 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Can walking safely on a public road become a matter of fundamental rights?
Imagine walking your five-year-old child to school. There is no footpath, no pedestrian crossing and no safe space away from moving vehicles. What should happen when public infrastructure fails to protect pedestrians?
In Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., the Supreme Court of India addressed this question while deciding a motor accident compensation appeal.
The Court expressly recognised the right to walk as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution. It held that this right includes access to demarcated footpaths and that pedestrian movement on such footpaths takes priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
The judgment also identified corresponding responsibilities for urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats to endeavour to provide and maintain footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure.
3. What Happened?
The case arose from the death of a five-year-old boy in a road accident.
At around 9 a.m., the child’s father left home with his son to take him to a neighbourhood school. As they walked towards the school, a tanker approached from behind and struck the child. The boy suffered fatal injuries.
The Supreme Court noted that the accident site had neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing.
The child’s father pursued compensation through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The Tribunal awarded ₹7,82,000 with interest at 6% per annum. The High Court later reduced the award to ₹4,70,000.
The matter reached the Supreme Court through civil appeals. While reviewing the compensation, the Court also examined the larger constitutional problem exposed by the accident: how can people meaningfully exercise their freedom of movement if public roads leave them without safe pedestrian spaces?
The Court ultimately enhanced the compensation and expressly recognised the right to walk as a Fundamental Right.
4. Main Legal Issues
The Supreme Court considered several connected questions:
- Does the Constitution protect the right to walk as a Fundamental Right?
- Does Article 19(1)(d), which guarantees freedom of movement, include walking and access to demarcated footpaths?
- Does the right to walk take priority over movement by motorised vehicles on demarcated footpaths?
- Which public authorities have corresponding duties to provide and maintain pedestrian infrastructure?
- What constitutional and legal remedies can citizens pursue when authorities fail to protect this right?
- Does India need a dedicated statutory framework for pedestrian rights?
The Court addressed these questions by interpreting existing constitutional guarantees and examining the responsibilities that accompany them.
5. Why Is the Right to Walk a Constitutional Issue?
Article 19(1)(d) guarantees citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. The Court explained that people exercise this freedom not only through cars, buses or motorcycles, but also by walking.
Walking is one of the most basic ways people reach schools, workplaces, markets, public institutions and other destinations. If road design forces pedestrians into the path of moving vehicles, their freedom of movement loses much of its practical value.
The Court therefore recognised the right to walk as integral to Article 19(1)(d). It went further by holding that the right includes access to safe, well-demarcated footpaths.
Simple example:
- Formal freedom: A citizen can legally travel from one place to another.
- Meaningful freedom: The citizen can also walk along a designated pedestrian space without being forced into moving traffic because the road lacks suitable footpath infrastructure.
This distinction lies at the heart of the judgment.
6. Article 19(1)(d): Freedom of Movement
Article 19(1)(d) protects the freedom of movement of Indian citizens throughout the country.
The Court rejected an understanding of movement that focuses mainly on motorised transport. A person walking to school, work or a public institution also exercises this constitutional freedom.
The judgment further connected walking with other freedoms under Article 19:
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression;
- Article 19(1)(b): Right to assemble peacefully and without arms;
- Article 19(1)(c): Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies; and
- Article 19(1)(d): Freedom of movement throughout India.
The Court recognised that walking can support social, cultural, political and reformative activity. It is therefore more than a method of physical transportation.
Article 19 rights apply to citizens, and the judgment’s reasoning must be read in that constitutional context. Article 21, by contrast, protects the life and personal liberty of all persons.
7. Article 21: Life, Safety and Dignity
Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. The Court connected the right to walk with this constitutional guarantee because walking forms part of ordinary life.
People need to move through public spaces to access education, employment, healthcare, markets and essential services. Unsafe pedestrian infrastructure can place their lives and physical safety at risk.
The Court therefore treated walking as integral to life and recognised that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths falls within the protection of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.
This approach reinforces a broader constitutional principle: rights must have practical meaning in the conditions in which people live.
8. The Right to Walk Includes the Right to Demarcated Footpaths
The judgment’s central holding goes beyond a general freedom to walk.
The Supreme Court expressly declared that the Fundamental Right to Walk includes the right to demarcated footpaths. It also held that this right is primary and takes priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
This does not prohibit motor vehicles from using public roads. Instead, it means that public authorities cannot treat motorised traffic as the only legitimate consideration in road planning while leaving pedestrians without designated spaces for movement.
The Court emphasised the need for safe, comfortable, well-demarcated and uninterrupted pedestrian infrastructure.
Key takeaway: The right to walk is not limited to permission to use a road. It includes a constitutional claim to properly demarcated pedestrian space.
9. What Is a Correlative Duty?
A right often carries a corresponding responsibility. The Supreme Court applied this principle to pedestrian infrastructure.
The Court held that where a road exists, there is a duty to ensure that pedestrians have demarcated and well-maintained footpaths. It identified the following duty bearers:
- Urban development authorities;
- Municipal corporations;
- Municipalities; and
- Panchayats.
These authorities must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure.
The wording matters. The Court identified a corresponding duty and required authorities to endeavour to fulfil it. The judgment should not be read as saying that every road must receive an identical design regardless of local circumstances.
The constitutional principle is that public authorities must take pedestrian rights seriously when planning and maintaining roads.
10. Can Authorities Prioritise Vehicles Over Pedestrians?
The Court stated that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is primary and takes priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
This challenges road-planning approaches that focus overwhelmingly on vehicular traffic and treat pedestrian facilities as optional additions.
Pedestrians are legitimate users of public spaces. Their safety and freedom of movement must inform decisions concerning road design, municipal governance, accessibility and public infrastructure.
The judgment has implications for both urban and rural planning. It highlights the need to consider children, older people, persons with disabilities and other pedestrians who may face particular difficulties when roads lack safe walking spaces.
However, the priority recognised by the Court concerns the right to walk on demarcated footpaths. It should not be misrepresented as a blanket prohibition on motorised traffic.
11. What Is the Role of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
The Supreme Court clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not itself establish the Fundamental Right to Walk on demarcated footpaths.
The Act primarily regulates motor vehicles and related matters, including:
- Driving licences;
- Vehicle registration;
- Transport vehicles;
- Traffic regulation;
- Motor vehicle insurance; and
- Motor accident claims.
The Court also discussed the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. These regulations address road users, including pedestrians, and require drivers to take precautions to protect vulnerable road users.
However, the Court considered those provisions insufficient to recognise the constitutional right to walk on demarcated footpaths and establish its priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
The distinction is important: traffic rules can improve road safety, but the constitutional right to walk rests on the Constitution rather than on the Motor Vehicles Act alone.
12. Why Did the Court Call for a Dedicated Legal Framework?
The Court observed that India lacked a specific, comprehensive statutory framework for protecting the right to walk on demarcated footpaths.
It explained that an effective framework should:
- Clearly protect pedestrian rights;
- Identify the authorities responsible for implementation;
- Provide accessible remedies for violations;
- Establish enforcement mechanisms;
- Improve pedestrian infrastructure; and
- Consider an appropriate regulatory institution.
The Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways so they could consider the need for an appropriate legal framework.
The Court also stated that a copy could be sent to the Law Commission of India to examine the possibility of a statutory framework covering the right, responsible authorities and remedies.
Important distinction: The Court called for consideration of an appropriate framework. The judgment did not itself enact a new statute or establish a new regulatory authority.
13. What Remedies Are Available?
The Court explained that a violation of the Fundamental Right to walk on demarcated footpaths can entitle citizens to seek restitutionary remedies against the relevant duty bearers.
It identified remedies under:
- The Constitution; and
- Sections 38–40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, concerning relief that may be used to enforce public duties.
The Court identified urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats as potential duty bearers.
It also clarified that these remedies are independent of the remedies available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
This is significant because a claim concerning the failure to provide or maintain pedestrian infrastructure need not always be treated solely as a conventional motor accident compensation claim.
The precise remedy will depend on the facts, the authority involved and the applicable law.
14. What Happened to the Compensation Claim?
Alongside its constitutional discussion, the Supreme Court reconsidered the compensation awarded for the child’s death.
The father had claimed ₹25,00,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,82,000 with interest at 6% per annum. The High Court later reduced that amount to ₹4,70,000.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in reducing the Tribunal’s award. It applied the methodology used in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 INSC 1244, to recalculate the compensation.
| Head of compensation | Amount |
|---|---|
| Loss of dependency | ₹10,11,528 |
| Loss of consortium | ₹96,800 |
| Loss of estate | ₹18,150 |
| Funeral expenses | ₹18,150 |
| Total compensation | ₹11,44,628 |
The Court directed payment of ₹11,44,628 within two months of its judgment.
The compensation decision addressed the individual claim, while the constitutional discussion established broader principles concerning pedestrian rights and public duties.
15. What Did the Supreme Court Finally Declare?
The Court’s conclusions can be summarised in four points.
1. Right to walk
The right to walk is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21.
2. Right to demarcated footpaths
The Fundamental Right to Walk includes access to demarcated footpaths. The Court held that this right takes priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
3. Duties of public authorities
Where a road exists, authorities have a corresponding duty to ensure demarcated and well-maintained footpaths. The specified authorities must endeavour to provide, construct, maintain and safeguard pedestrian infrastructure.
4. Legal remedies
Citizens may invoke constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation when authorities violate the right to walk on demarcated footpaths. These remedies remain independent of those available under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court also directed the Registry to re-number the matter as a petition under Article 32 under the cause title Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath. It impleaded the Government of India through the relevant ministries in that proceeding.
16. Ratio Decidendi
The central legal principle is that the right to walk is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution, integral to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other freedoms under Article 19 and the protection of life under Article 21.
That right includes access to demarcated footpaths, which the Court declared primary and entitled to priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
The judgment also recognised a corresponding duty on urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats to endeavour to provide and maintain such pedestrian infrastructure. A violation can support constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation.
17. Why Is This Judgment Important?
A. It expressly recognises the right to walk
The Constitution does not contain a separate Article titled “Right to Walk.” The Court derived this right from existing Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 19(1)(d), read with other provisions of Article 19 and Article 21.
B. It places pedestrian safety within constitutional law
The judgment treats safe pedestrian movement as more than a matter of traffic administration. It links access to demarcated footpaths with constitutional freedom and public responsibility.
C. It identifies corresponding duties
The Court identified the authorities responsible for endeavouring to provide and maintain footpaths and related infrastructure.
D. It explains how citizens can seek remedies
The judgment connects the right to walk with constitutional and civil remedies, including the restitutionary remedies discussed under Sections 38–40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
E. It highlights the need for legislation
The Court called for consideration of a dedicated statutory framework that could identify duty bearers, establish enforcement mechanisms and provide accessible remedies.
F. It has implications for public planning
The decision is relevant to municipal governance, road design, accessibility and the planning of public spaces. Authorities must consider pedestrian rights rather than focus exclusively on motorised transport.
18. Landmark Cases to Compare
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
This case is important for understanding the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 and the Supreme Court’s integrated approach to constitutional rights.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545
This judgment explored the relationship between the right to life, livelihood and the realities of life in public spaces. It provides useful context for examining how constitutional rights operate in everyday conditions.
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155
This case is relevant to the constitutional treatment of activities carried out on public streets and the rights of citizens who use public spaces.
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012
The Supreme Court referred to its continuing work on road safety and pedestrian protection in this proceeding. The reference helps explain the background to the Court’s concern about pedestrian rights, while the present judgment separately articulates the Fundamental Right to Walk on demarcated footpaths.
These cases provide constitutional and legal context. They do not all decide the same issue as Maniyar Iliyaz.
19. Relevant Constitutional and Legal Provisions
| Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Article 19(1)(a) | Freedom of speech and expression |
| Article 19(1)(b) | Right to assemble peacefully and without arms |
| Article 19(1)(c) | Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies |
| Article 19(1)(d) | Freedom of movement throughout the territory of India; primary basis for the right to walk |
| Article 21 | Protection of life and personal liberty |
| Article 32 | Constitutional remedy before the Supreme Court |
| Article 226 | High Courts’ power to issue writs |
| Sections 38–40, Specific Relief Act, 1963 | Remedies relevant to enforcement of public duties, as discussed by the Court |
| Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | Regulates motor vehicles and motor accident claims but does not itself establish the constitutional right to walk on demarcated footpaths |
20. Case Timeline
Road accident: A five-year-old boy was walking with his father towards a neighbourhood school when a tanker struck him from behind.
30 May 2016: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,82,000 with interest at 6% per annum.
High Court proceedings: The High Court reduced the compensation to ₹4,70,000.
Supreme Court appeals: The matter reached the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal Nos. 4665–4666 of 2025.
19 June 2026: The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in 2026 INSC 647, enhanced compensation to ₹11,44,628 and recognised the right to walk as a Fundamental Right.
Further proceedings: The Court directed the Registry to re-number the matter under Article 32 as Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath and involved the relevant Union ministries in considering the need for a dedicated legal framework.
21. Exam and Interview Corner
Q1. Is the right to walk a Fundamental Right?
Yes. The Supreme Court expressly recognised the right to walk as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.
Q2. Which provision primarily protects the right to walk?
Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21.
Q3. Does the right to walk include the right to demarcated footpaths?
Yes. The Court expressly included access to demarcated footpaths within the Fundamental Right to Walk.
Q4. Which authorities have corresponding duties?
Urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats must endeavour to provide and maintain pedestrian infrastructure.
Q5. Do pedestrian rights take priority over motor vehicles?
The Court held that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is primary and takes priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
Q6. Does the Motor Vehicles Act create the Fundamental Right to Walk?
No. The Court clarified that the Act does not itself recognise the constitutional right to walk on demarcated footpaths.
Q7. What remedies can citizens pursue?
Citizens may invoke constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation against the relevant duty bearers. The judgment discusses remedies under the Constitution and Sections 38–40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Q8. Did the Court add a new Article to the Constitution?
No. It interpreted existing Fundamental Rights. It also called for consideration of a dedicated statutory framework.
22. Legal Terms Made Simple
Fundamental Right: A right protected under Part III of the Constitution.
Freedom of movement: The right under Article 19(1)(d) that allows citizens to move freely throughout India.
Pedestrian infrastructure: Facilities designed to support safe walking, including demarcated footpaths and related facilities.
Correlative duty: A legal responsibility that corresponds to and supports a recognised right.
Restitutionary remedy: Relief intended to address a violation and remedy its consequences.
Constitutional remedy: A legal process used to enforce constitutional rights, including proceedings under Articles 32 and 226.
Duty bearer: An authority or institution responsible for fulfilling a legal obligation.
23. One-Line Memory Trick
Article 19(1)(d) = Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Movement = Right to Walk
Right to Walk = Access to Demarcated Footpaths
Footpath Right = Priority over Motorised Movement
Recognised Right = Corresponding Public Duties
Violation = Constitutional and Legal Remedies
TARAJU TAKEAWAY
In Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., the Supreme Court expressly recognised the right to walk as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.
The Court connected this right with freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) and the protection of life under Article 21. It also held that the right includes access to demarcated footpaths and takes priority over movement by motorised vehicles o
