The right to walk judgment, explained
Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 INSC 647, Civil Appeals 4665–4666 of 2025, decided by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar. What the Court declared, what each key paragraph says, and what it does not say. Quotations are from the signed judgment.
In one minute
- Walking is a fundamental right. It is part of the right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a) to (c) and 21. It includes the right to demarcated footpaths. Binding law
- Footpaths come first. These rights "are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles". Binding law
- Where there is a road, there is a duty. Development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats "must endeavour to" demarcate, build, maintain and safeguard footpaths. Binding law
- The duty can be enforced. A citizen can seek restitution and compensation from these bodies, separately from any Motor Vehicles Act claim. Binding law
- There is no law yet. The Court said a dedicated statute and a full-time regulator are needed, and sent the judgment to three Union ministries and the Law Commission.
What the Court declared
Paragraph 20 holds the three declarations. They are the part to quote.
"a. The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), Article 19(1)(c) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles."
Para 20(a)"b. The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has a correlative duty. If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers. The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats, who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure, as walking is integral to life."
Para 20(b)"c. 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. This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."
Para 20(c)The case behind it
A father was walking his five-year-old son to school when a tanker struck the boy from behind and killed him. In the Court's words, "there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing" (paras 1–2).
The father had claimed ₹25 lakh. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,82,000 in 2016, and the High Court cut it to ₹4,70,000. The Supreme Court called that cut an error and raised the award to ₹11,44,628, to be paid within two months (paras 17–19).
Paragraph by paragraph
- Para 4: walking before wheels. The Court asks readers to stop linking the right to move "only with movement on wheels". The primary right under Article 19(1)(d) is the right to walk, and it "must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and well demarcated footpath".
- Para 5: walkers pushed aside. Motor traffic "pushed aside the walkers to the extent that they are treated as a nuisance". The Court says "This should stop from now on".
- Paras 6 and 14: not a motor-vehicle question. The Motor Vehicles Act "is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk". It is built around the vehicle; the pedestrian is incidental. The 2017 Driving Regulations only guide drivers.
- Para 7: the minimum duty. The Court asks "how much does it take to create a well-demarcated footpath wherever a road exists?" A footpath should be "the minimum of the minimum duty that a municipal authority owes to the citizens".
- Para 8: more than movement. Walking also carries rights of expression, assembly and association under Article 19(1)(a) to (c). Common spaces should not be "a monopoly of the motorized class alone".
- Paras 9 and 10: who owes the duty. The duty bearers are urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats. "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."
- Paras 11 to 13: a law is needed. Other rights have their own Acts, such as the Right to Education Act and the Right to Information Act. For walking "there is no legislation". The Court sent the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, and to the Law Commission.
- Para 15: how to enforce it. A citizen whose right is violated can seek a "restitutionary remedy" under the Constitution or sections 38 to 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, against the same duty bearers. This is separate from a Motor Vehicles Act claim.
- Para 16: a regulator. The Court says a permanent regulatory body is needed to plan, enforce and keep data on the right to walk.
- Para 21: the case continues. The Court renamed the matter "Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath", turned it into a petition under Article 32, made the Government of India a party through the three ministries, and asked the Additional Solicitor General to assist. Mamidipudi V. Mukunda is the amicus curiae.
What it does not say
- It sets no footpath width and no deadline. Widths come from Indian Roads Congress guidance; see the law page. Not in the judgment
- It does not create a "Right to Walk Act". It asks for one. Not in the judgment
- It does not name NHAI, PWD or private developers as duty bearers. For highways, the directions in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India are the stronger route. Not in the judgment
- It is not about street vendors. It is about the duty to provide and keep footpaths. Not in the judgment
- Later orders in the renumbered case may add directions. Check the current order before citing anything beyond 19 June 2026.
What it means on your street
In Gurugram the duty sits with whichever body owns the road: GMDA, MCG, HSVP, the coloniser under DTCP, NHAI or PWD. If your road has no usable footpath, the judgment gives you the words for a complaint and the body to send it to.