Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan
“The Right to Walk Is a Fundamental Right: Supreme Court Declares Access to Demarcated Footpaths Under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 and Calls for a Footpath Law and Regulator”
TL;DR
In an appeal arising from a motor accident claim for the death of a five-year-old boy who was struck by a tanker while walking to school with his father on a road with neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing, the Supreme Court declared that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right of movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and Article 21, and takes within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths, which has priority over movement by motorised vehicles. The Court identified urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats as duty bearers who must provide and maintain footpaths wherever a road exists, held that violation entitles citizens to constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation independent of the Motor Vehicles Act, and directed copies of the judgment to be sent to three Union Ministries and the Law Commission to consider a statutory framework with a full-time regulator. On the claim itself, the Court restored and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,44,628/-, payable within two months.
The Bottom Line
Walking is no longer just a convenience that depends on whether a road happens to have a footpath. The Supreme Court has declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right which takes priority over motorised traffic, and has made it an enforceable duty of local bodies to provide and maintain footpaths wherever roads exist. Citizens whose right is violated can seek restitution and compensation from these bodies, separately from any claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court also asked the Union Government and the Law Commission to consider a dedicated law and regulator.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
MACT Awards Compensation
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,82,000/- with 6% interest against a claim of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the death of the five-year-old child.
MACT Awards Compensation
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,82,000/- with 6% interest against a claim of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the death of the five-year-old child.
Supreme Court Declares Fundamental Right to Walk
The Court declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,44,628/- and directed that the case be re-numbered as a petition under Article 32 titled Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath.
Supreme Court Declares Fundamental Right to Walk
The Court declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,44,628/- and directed that the case be re-numbered as a petition under Article 32 titled Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath.
The Story
The appellant, a father, readied his five-year-old son and left home at 9 am to drop him at the neighbourhood school. As the two walked towards the school, a tanker came from behind and struck the boy, crushing his waist and lower body. The boy succumbed to the injuries. As the Court noted, there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing at the spot.
The father filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by award dated 30.05.2016, granted Rs. 7,82,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. In appeals filed by the appellant and by the Insurance Company, the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and, allowing the respondent's appeal, reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,70,000/-. The father came to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4665-4666 of 2025.
The Supreme Court used the occasion to look at the larger question of the right to walk. It noted that it was already monitoring the implementation of road safety guidelines in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 295/2012) and had issued guidelines in In Re: Phalodi Accident (2026 INSC 388), but that the issue before it was "something more fundamental". Mr. Mamidipudi V Mukunda was appointed as amicus curiae, and the Court records its appreciation of his assistance.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
High Court wrongly reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
The father, the appellant, challenged the High Court order that reduced the compensation from Rs. 7,82,000/- to Rs. 4,70,000/- after having claimed Rs. 25,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court committed an error in reducing the compensation granted by the MACT.
Absence of footpath and pedestrian crossing at the accident spot
The Court proceeded on the footing that there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing where the father and son were walking, which became the springboard for the Court's examination of the right to walk.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Insurance Company succeeded in reducing compensation before the High Court
In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the High Court had reduced the Tribunal's award to Rs. 4,70,000/-. The Supreme Court did not accept this reduction and enhanced the award. The judgment does not record separate detailed submissions by the respondents.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court began with the human story of the accident and then recast the issue as one about the "simplest of the simple human activity: walking". It reasoned that the right to move freely throughout the territory of India under Article 19(1)(d) is not only about movement on wheels; walking predates wheels, and the primary right of movement must extend to safe and well demarcated footpaths. It traced the cultural, social, religious, political and reformative significance of walking and linked it to the expressional, congregational and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c). The Court noted how the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and its predecessor are vehicle-centred and treat pedestrian interests as incidental; even the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 (which define "road user" to include pedestrians and require special care for vulnerable users) were described as guiding principles for drivers that neither recognise the right to walk on footpaths nor prioritise it over motorised roads. The Court then compared the position with statutes such as the Right to Education Act, 2009, the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Right to Information Act, 2005, each of which declares a right, identifies duty bearers, provides remedies and sets up a regulator, and observed that no such framework exists for the right to walk. It therefore made a declaration, identified the duty bearers, and held that restitution and compensation are available against them under the Constitution or Sections 38-40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It urged creation of a regulator with perpetual succession, institutional expertise, independence and accountability. Turning to the facts, it found the High Court wrong to reduce compensation, applied the method in Karuna Parmar, and recalculated the award.
The citizen's fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
Para 4
Establishes the hierarchy between pedestrian and vehicular movement on public roads.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk.
Para 6
Explains why a separate framework and remedy are needed beyond motor accident claims.
If a road exists, there must then be a duty to ensure that a footpath is demarcated and maintained for the walkers. This is an enforceable duty.
Para 10
Converts the right into a concrete, enforceable obligation on local authorities.
The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution.
Para 20(a)
The operative declaration of the Court.
The violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation.
Para 20(c)
Provides the remedial pathway, independent of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The father was granted total compensation of Rs. 11,44,628/- (loss of dependency Rs. 10,11,528/-, loss of consortium Rs. 96,800/-, loss of estate Rs. 18,150/- and funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-), payable within two months from the date of the judgment, in place of the High Court's reduced award of Rs. 4,70,000/-.
Directions Issued
- The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, integral to Article 19(1)(d) read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21, and includes the right to demarcated footpaths with priority over motorised movement
- Urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats are duty bearers who must demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure
- Violation entitles citizens to constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation, independent of remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- The Registry is to send copies of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, and to the Law Commission, to consider a statutory framework and regulator
- Compensation of Rs. 11,44,628/- is to be paid to the appellants within two months
- The Registry is to re-number the case as a petition under Article 32 titled Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath; the Government of India through the three Ministries is impleaded as a party in person, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, is requested to assist the Court
Key Legal Principles Established
The right to walk is a fundamental right that flows from Article 19(1)(d) read with Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and Article 21.
The fundamental right to walk takes within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths, and this right has priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
Wherever a road exists there is an enforceable duty on the concerned authority to ensure that a demarcated and well-maintained footpath is available to walkers.
Urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats are the duty bearers for provisioning footpaths and pedestrian infrastructure.
Violation of the right gives rise to constitutional and statutory remedies for restitution and compensation, including under Sections 38-40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which are distinct from claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Effectuating a fundamental right calls for a statutory framework that declares the right, identifies duty bearers, provides remedies and establishes an independent regulator.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- You have a fundamental right to walk safely on a demarcated footpath, and this right takes priority over movement by motor vehicles.
- If a road exists, the municipality, development authority or panchayat responsible must provide and maintain a footpath.
- If you or your family are harmed because there is no footpath or it is blocked or unsafe, you can seek restitution and compensation from the responsible authority, apart from any motor accident claim.
- The Supreme Court has asked the Union Government and the Law Commission to consider a dedicated law and a regulator for pedestrian rights.
- In this very case, the father of a five-year-old boy killed by a tanker received enhanced compensation of Rs. 11,44,628/- after the High Court had reduced it.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 19(1)(d)
Constitution of India
“All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.”
Relevance: The Court held that the primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the fundamental right to walk, which precedes the right to move on wheels and extends to demarcated footpaths.
Article 19(1)(a), (b) and (c)
Constitution of India
“Rights to freedom of speech and expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms, and to form associations or unions.”
Relevance: The Court observed that walking embodies expressional, congregational and associational rights, citing examples such as the Dandi March and the Bhoodan Movement.
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The right to walk on demarcated footpaths was held to be integral to Article 21, as walking is integral to life.
Article 32
Constitution of India
“Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.”
Relevance: The Court directed the Registry to re-number the case as a petition under Article 32 titled Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath.
Statutory Provisions
Chapters II to XII (including Chapter XII on claims tribunals)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
“Statute governing licensing, registration, control of transport, traffic, insurance and claims tribunals for motor vehicles.”
Relevance: The Court held that the Act is vehicle-centred and does not recognise the fundamental right to walk, and that remedies for violation of that right are independent of it.
Regulations 2(o), 3, 5 and 9
Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017
“Define road user to include pedestrians and impose duties on drivers towards road users, vulnerable road users and at pedestrian crossings.”
Relevance: The Court described these regulations as guiding principles for drivers that neither recognise the right to walk on footpaths nor prioritise it over motorised roads.
Sections 38-40
Specific Relief Act, 1963
“Provisions relating to perpetual injunctions, including enforcement of public duties.”
Relevance: The Court held that a restitutionary remedy is available under these sections against urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats.
RTE Act Sections 3-5, 31, 32; NFSA Sections 3-7, 14, 15, 24-26; RTI Act Sections 3-5, 12, 15, 19
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009; National Food Security Act, 2013; Right to Information Act, 2005
“Statutes that declare a right, identify duty bearers, provide remedies and establish regulators.”
Relevance: Used by the Court as models of the type of statutory framework that is needed for the right to walk on demarcated footpaths.
Related Cases & Precedents
Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha
followed2025 INSC 1244
A similar case of the death of a six-year-old child; the Court followed its method of computing loss of dependency using minimum wages, 40% future prospects, 50% deduction and a multiplier of 18.
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India
citedW.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012
The Supreme Court is monitoring implementation of road safety directions in this matter, issued since 2012.
In Re: Phalodi Accident
cited2026 INSC 388
The Court noted that it had also issued certain road safety guidelines in this matter.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.