Why in News?

• In a landmark judgment delivered, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to walk on safe and demarcated footpaths is a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.
• It declared that pedestrian rights take precedence over the movement of motorised vehicles and called for a comprehensive legal framework to protect walkers.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Constitutional Recognition of the Right to Walk
• Footpaths as an Enforceable Constitutional Right
• Pedestrian Rights Above Motorised Traffic
• Compensation and Legal Remedies
• The Case Behind the Judgment
• Critique of Existing Legal Framework
• Cultural and Democratic Significance of Walking
• Need for a Dedicated Law and Regulator
• Conclusion

Constitutional Recognition of the Right to Walk:

• The SC ruled that the right to walk is an intrinsic component of:
  • Article 19(1)(d) – Freedom of movement.
  • Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of expression.
  • Article 19(1)(b) – Freedom of assembly.
  • Article 19(1)(c) – Freedom of association.
  • Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.
• The Court observed that walking is the most basic form of human movement and predates all motorised transport.
• Therefore, access to safe and well-maintained footpaths is an essential constitutional entitlement.

Footpaths as an Enforceable Constitutional Right:

• The judgment established that wherever a road exists, there is a corresponding legal duty to provide and maintain pedestrian infrastructure.
• Duty bearers identified:
  • The responsibility lies with the Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats.
  • These bodies must demarcate footpaths, construct and maintain pedestrian facilities, protect footpaths from encroachment and neglect, and ensure safe pedestrian movement.
• The Court made this obligation judicially enforceable, transforming pedestrian infrastructure from a governance concern into a constitutional requirement.

Pedestrian Rights Above Motorised Traffic:

• The Court unequivocally held that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has priority over the privilege of movement by motorised vehicles.
• It criticised the prevailing urban planning approach that disproportionately favours automobiles while marginalising pedestrians.
• According to the Court, roads and public spaces cannot become the monopoly of the motorised class; equitable access must be ensured for all citizens.

Compensation and Legal Remedies:

• A significant aspect of the judgment is the recognition of independent remedies for violation of pedestrian rights.
• Citizens suffering injury, loss, or hardship due to absence of footpaths, encroached footpaths, and poorly maintained pedestrian infrastructure, can seek:
  • Constitutional remedies,
  • Restitution,
  • Compensation from public authorities.
• These remedies are separate from compensation available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Case Behind the Judgment:

• The ruling emerged from a compensation dispute involving a five-year-old boy who died after being hit by a tanker while walking to school with his father.
• Compensation timeline:
  • Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT): ₹7.82 lakh compensation.
  • High Court: Reduced compensation to ₹4.70 lakh.
  • SC: Enhanced compensation to ₹11.44 lakh with directions for payment within two months.
• The Court noted that the accident site lacked both a footpath and a pedestrian crossing, highlighting systemic neglect of pedestrian safety.

Critique of Existing Legal Framework:

• The Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 primarily regulates drivers and vehicles but does not adequately recognise pedestrian rights.
• Key observations:
  • Existing laws impose duties on drivers but fail to establish a right to walk safely.
  • Pedestrian interests have remained secondary to motor traffic.
  • Urban planning has historically prioritised roads for vehicles rather than people.
• The Bench described the neglect of walkers as a long-standing "civilisational problem".

Cultural and Democratic Significance of Walking:

• The judgment emphasised that walking is not merely a mode of transport but also:
  • A means of expression.
  • A form of social interaction and association.
  • An instrument of political mobilisation and resistance.
  • A part of India's cultural and freedom movement heritage.
• The Court linked walking to democratic freedoms protected under Article 19 and the constitutional duty under Article 51A to cherish the ideals of the freedom struggle.

Need for a Dedicated Law and Regulator:

• Recognising the absence of a comprehensive legal framework, the Court urged the government to enact legislation that would:
  • Formally declare the right to walk.
  • Clearly identify duty bearers.
  • Provide quick remedies for violations.
  • Protect and enhance pedestrian infrastructure.
  • Establish a full-time regulatory authority for planning, implementation, monitoring and enforcement.
• The Court stressed that institutional accountability and expert oversight are essential for meaningful implementation.

Conclusion:

• A truly inclusive democracy is measured not by the speed of its vehicles but by the safety, accessibility and dignity it affords its most vulnerable road users.
• Going forward, embedding pedestrian-centric urban planning within the framework of sustainable development and the right to the city can help create safer, healthier and more equitable public spaces.