The law behind the right to walk
What the Supreme Court has said, who can make the law and who has, what a footpath should be, who must provide it in Gurugram, and what this check cannot claim. Every line carries its source.
What the court has said
"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."
Supreme Court, Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 INSC 647, 19 June 2026, para 20(b). Binding law- The right to walk is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) with Articles 19(1)(a) to (c) and 21. It includes "the right to demarcated footpaths", and these rights "are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles". Binding law
- The duty is enforceable. Para 10 calls it "an enforceable duty"; para 20(c) gives remedies for restitution and compensation independent of the Motor Vehicles Act. Binding law
- Footpaths in good condition are part of Article 21. "By the side of all public roads, there must be proper facility of footpaths or footways with special emphasis on user-friendly to persons with disabilities." S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 14 May 2025. Binding law
- Agencies in 50 cities and NHAI were told to audit footpaths for deficiencies in width, height and surface, make crossings compliant with Indian Roads Congress guidelines, map encroachment hotspots with photographs, and open online footpath grievance systems. Rajaseekaran, 7 October 2025. Court direction
- Drivers must slow down at crossings, pedestrians have right of way at uncontrolled crossings, and no vehicle may be driven or parked on a footpath. Rules of the Road Regulations 1989, regulations 8, 11 and 15. Statutory regulation
- The case is still open as "Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath", W.P.(C) 844/2026. On 24 August 2026 every State and UT was made a party; on 5 October 2026 the Union was told to name the authority responsible for footpaths and five pilot towns.
Who can make the law, and who has
There is no Right to Walk Act. That does not mean there is no law. The right is declared, the power to legislate is Haryana's, the duty to build sits with the road's owner, and the Motor Vehicles Act already hands the State rule-making powers it has not used. Read from the top down.
The right. Walking, and a demarcated footpath, is a fundamental right. Binding law
Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution: the right to walk and to demarcated footpaths, with priority over motor vehicles (Maniyar Iliyaz, 19 June 2026); footpaths in good condition are part of Article 21 (Rajaseekaran, 14 May 2025). Binding law
Who may legislate. Roads are a State subject; Haryana can make a footpath law. No State has. Constitution
Roads are on the State List (Seventh Schedule, List II, entry 13), so the Haryana legislature can make a footpath law. No State has. Constitution
Whose duty. The road's owner: MCG, GMDA, HSVP, or NHAI on the highways. Statute
Roads and bridges are a municipal function (Article 243W, Twelfth Schedule, item 4). In Gurugram the statutes put the roads with the Municipal Corporation (Haryana Municipal Corporation Act 1994), GMDA (GMDA Act 2017), HSVP, and NHAI for the national highways. Statute
Powers the State has not used. Two Motor Vehicles Act rule-making powers since 2019; the Court's six months lapsed in April 2026. Power, unused
Since 2019 the Motor Vehicles Act lets a State make rules "regulating the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places" (section 138(1A)) and rules for "design, construction and maintenance standards for roads other than national highways" (section 210D). On 7 October 2025 the Supreme Court gave States six months to make them. Haryana's are not on the public record; two RTIs are asking. Power, unused
Liability, once standards exist. Section 198A fines the authority or contractor whose non-compliance kills; it needs standards first. Statute
Section 198A: the authority, contractor or consultant responsible for a road must follow the prescribed standards, and where the failure causes death or disability is punishable with a fine of up to one lakh rupees. It bites only against standards actually prescribed, by the Centre for highways or by the State under section 210D for every other road. That is why the rules matter. Statute
Accessibility. Kerb ramps and tactile tiles are a statutory requirement. Binding law
Section 41(1)(c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 requires "accessible roads"; the 2021 Harmonised Guidelines and IRC:SP:117-2018 set the standard for kerb ramps and tactile tiles. Binding law
Standards. IRC:103-2022 is the yardstick; Gurugram has adopted none. Standard
IRC:103-2022 is the yardstick the Court named. It binds only where a government adopts it, and Gurugram has adopted no street standard. Standard
Court directions. Audits in fifty cities; five pilot towns to be named. Gurugram is in neither yet. Court direction
Footpath audits and grievance systems in India's fifty largest cities and on national highways (7 October 2025); the Union to name the authority responsible for footpaths and five pilot towns (5 October 2026). Gurugram is not among the fifty. Court direction
The honest summary: the competence is clear, the duty is assigned, the mandatory layer is thin. The gap is Haryana's unmade rules, and that is the first thing this record asks for.
What a footpath should be
The Indian Roads Congress code IRC:103 is the yardstick the Court named. It is engineering guidance, binding only where a city has adopted it. Gurugram has adopted no street standard of its own, so this check reports the 2012 edition as the floor and the 2022 revision as the current standard. Standard
| What | IRC:103-2012 | IRC:103-2022 |
|---|---|---|
| Clear walking zone | 1.8 m | 2.0 m; 2.5 m near schools, hospitals, markets and bus stops; 4.0 m on city commercial streets |
| Kerb height | 150 mm at most | 150 mm at most |
| Across gates and side lanes | Continuous between junctions | Vehicle ramps within the footpath no longer than 3.5 m |
| Kerb ramps at crossings | 1:12, at least 1.2 m wide, tactile tiles | 1:15 |
| Crossings | Every 80 to 250 m | Every 80 to 150 m; raised tables at unsignalised crossings; refuge of 1.2 m where the road is wider than 10.5 m |
| Where a footpath is required | Collector roads and above | Every street where traffic moves faster than 15 km/h |
| Lighting | 25 to 40 lux | 25 to 30 lux |
The 2022 figures are read from the IRC draft hosted by NITI Aayog; the published code is paywalled. The 2 m walking zone is independently confirmed.
Who must provide it here
The agency that owns the road maintains the footpath. In Gurugram that is at least six bodies, and no public map says which road is whose. The check asks you to pick the likely owner; "not sure" goes to GMDA and the Chief Minister's Window, which forward it.
- GMDA: master sector-dividing roads and their service roads.
- MCG: internal roads in HSVP sectors transferred in 2017, and nine private colonies taken over in 2022.
- HSVP: sectors not yet transferred.
- DTCP and the coloniser: inside DLF, Sushant Lok, South City, Palam Vihar and other licensed colonies until transfer.
- NHAI: NH-48 and NH-248A (Sohna Road) and their service lanes.
- PWD (B&R): state roads.
What this check cannot say
- That "the Supreme Court ordered every road to have an X-metre footpath by a date". No such order exists. Cannot say
- That "there is a Right to Walk Act". There is none. The right is a constitutional declaration; the power to make the law is the State's, the duty to build is the road owner's, and the Motor Vehicles Act already gives Haryana rule-making powers it has not used (the ladder above). Cannot say
- That NHAI, PWD or a private developer "must build footpaths under Maniyar". The judgment names development authorities, municipal bodies and panchayats; for highways the stronger hook is the Rajaseekaran directions, to which NHAI is a party. Cannot say
- This is not an encroachment reporter. A failure is the road owner's failure to provide, demarcate or maintain, not a person to be removed. Vending has its own law (Street Vendors Act 2014) and belongs in a designed vending zone.