Supreme Court declares right to walk on footpath a fundamental right, wants law

This judgment significantly expands the interpretation of Fundamental Rights within Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court explicitly linked the right to walk with Article 19(1)(d), 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 Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). The Court also imaginatively connected walking to other freedoms, noting it embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), and Article 19(1)(c). 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.

The ruling underscores a significant gap in current legislative frameworks and administrative priorities. The Court criticized the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 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 Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) and the Law Commission of India 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.

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.