उच्चतम न्यायालय ने 'मनियार इलियाज़ बनाम पी. अय्यप्पन' मामले में सुरक्षित फुटपाथ पर चलने के अधिकार (Right to Walk on Safe Footpaths) को संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19(1)(d) और अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत मौलिक अधिकार (Fundamental Right) घोषित करते हुए राज्यों को अनिवार्य फुटपाथ निर्माण और अतिक्रमण हटाने के निर्देश दिए हैं।
NEW DELHI — In a transformative constitutional ruling, the Supreme Court of India expanded the horizon of personal liberty and spatial freedom, declaring the "Right to Walk on Safe and Well-Demarcated Footpaths" an integral Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, observed that the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and the right to a dignified life under Article 21 remain illusory if citizens are forced to risk their lives on motorized carriage ways due to missing, broken, or encroached pedestrian infrastructure.
Factual Matrix of the Case
The milestone ruling arose from an appeal regarding a tragic motor accident compensation claim. A five-year-old boy was fatally run over by a speeding commercial water tanker while walking to his kindergarten school with his father. Due to extensive administrative negligence, the arterial road in question completely lacked walkable pavements, leaving pedestrians with no option but to navigate the edge of heavy, unmanaged traffic.
While the lower forums limited their focus to the standard calculation of motor vehicle accident compensation, the Supreme Court took judicial notice of a systemic crisis: the rapid degradation of pedestrian spaces across urban India, leading to disproportionately high pedestrian fatalities.
Key Legal Issues Evaluated
- Constitutional Scope: Whether the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India encompasses a corresponding state obligation to provide safe, unobstructed pedestrian infrastructure.
- State Liability: Whether local municipal bodies and highway authorities can be held liable for systemic design failures that expose non-motorized road users to fatal risks.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that municipal planning has historically suffered from an "automobile bias," prioritizing high-speed vehicular flow while completely ignoring the structural safety of children, the elderly, and disabled pedestrians. They contended that pedestrian safety must be treated as a constitutional right, not an administrative afterthought.
Conversely, state counsel argued that infrastructure planning falls strictly within the domain of policy and executive discretion, limited by budgetary allocations and municipal space constraints.
The Court's Findings & Legal Holding
Rejecting the state’s defense of executive discretion, the Supreme Court noted that municipal planning must align with constitutional mandates.
Writing for the Bench, Justice P.S. Narasimha observed:
"Walking is the most fundamental, ancient, and democratic form of human mobility. The right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) cannot be restricted to the ownership of a motor vehicle. A citizen's right to walk on a safe, unencumbered footpath is directly linked to their right to life, safety, and bodily integrity under Article 21."
The Court explicitly recognized a new compensatory head titled "Loss of Domestic Care" to properly valuate the human toll of pedestrian accidents on families.
Mandatory Directives Issued to States
To ensure enforcement of this newly declared right, the apex court issued a series of binding directives under Article 142 to all State Governments and Union Territories:
- Mandatory Footpath Allocation: All future urban road construction and arterial expansion contracts must explicitly include unencumbered, universally accessible footpaths as a non-negotiable component.
- Anti-Encroachment Audits: Municipal corporations nationwide are directed to conduct quarterly safety and clearance audits of existing footpaths, removing commercial and utility obstructions.
- Speed Limiting Mandates: Incorporating elements from S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, the court directed strict compliance from vehicle manufacturers to install speed-limiting devices at the factory stage to protect pedestrian zones.
The matter has been listed for a compliance review in October 2026 to monitor the progress of implementation across major metropolitan centers.
Discription: In Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan, the Supreme Court of India officially declared the "Right to Walk on Safe Footpaths" a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. A Division Bench ruled that personal liberty and freedom of movement are severely compromised when citizens are forced into hazardous traffic due to missing or encroached sidewalks.
The landmark case stemmed from a tragic accident where a child died due to absent pedestrian infrastructure. Rejecting executive claims of budgetary limits, the apex court issued binding nationwide directives under Article 142. Municipal corporations must now ensure mandatory footpath integration in all future road projects, execute quarterly anti-encroachment clearance drives, and implement stricter speed-limiting measures to protect non-motorized commuters. A formal compliance review is scheduled for October 2026.