by Dr Ratan Bhattacharjee
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark constitutional ruling declaring that the right to walk—specifically, the right to walk on safe, demarcated, and obstruction free footpaths—is a fundamental right protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This verdict elevates pedestrian safety from a matter of civic convenience to a constitutional obligation owed by the State and all local authorities. Cities around the world have recognized that pedestrian friendly infrastructure reduces pollution, improves public health, enhances social cohesion, and supports economic vitality. By calling for a national law, the Court signals that India must move beyond fragmented municipal regulations and adopt a coherent, rights based approach to mobility. The Court’s directive includes several key components: mandatory footpaths on all public roads, designed to be continuous, obstruction free, and accessible to persons with disabilities; safe and well marked pedestrian crossings, including zebra crossings, raised tables, and signalized intersections; strict enforcement against encroachments, illegal parking, and commercial use of footpaths; traffic calming measures such as speed limits, rumble strips, and pedestrian priority zones; and clear assignment of responsibility among municipal bodies, traffic police, and state governments for maintenance, monitoring, and compliance.
The Court held that walking is the most basic form of human movement and is inseparable from the fundamental right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d) and the right to life and dignity under Article 21. It emphasized that pedestrian rights take precedence over motor vehicle movement, meaning the privilege of motorists cannot override the fundamental right of citizens to walk safely. The judgment arose from a tragic case involving the death of a five year old child who was struck by a tanker while walking to school in an area without a footpath. The Court used the case not only to address compensation but to articulate a broader constitutional principle: if a road exists, authorities have a duty to provide safe, well maintained footpaths. This duty applies to municipal corporations, municipalities, panchayats, and urban development authorities.
The Court also noted that India’s road infrastructure has historically prioritized motorized transport, leaving pedestrians vulnerable. Pedestrian deaths have surged dramatically—rising from 13,894 in 2015 to 36,526 in 2024, an increase of nearly 163%. This data reinforced the Court’s view that pedestrian safety is not merely a policy issue but a constitutional necessity. Importantly, the Supreme Court directed governments to frame a national pedestrian law and create uniform guidelines for accessible, obstruction free, and disability friendly footpaths. It held that citizens may seek constitutional remedies, including compensation, when their right to walk is violated—independent of remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Supreme Court of India’s recent verdict calling for the creation of a National Pedestrian Law marks a transformative moment in the country’s constitutional and urban governance landscape, elevating the simple act of walking into a matter of fundamental rights and state responsibility. The Court’s judgment, delivered in response to a tragic case involving the death of a young child who was struck by a tanker while walking to school in an area without a footpath, expands the meaning of the right to life under Article 21 and the right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d), declaring that the right to walk safely on public roads is not merely a civic expectation but a constitutional entitlement. This verdict reframes pedestrian safety as a national priority and compels governments at all levels to rethink how roads, cities, and public spaces are designed, managed, and regulated.
The Court noted that cities must be designed for people, not just vehicles, and that walkability is a hallmark of civilized societies. It cited examples from global cities that have successfully reduced pedestrian fatalities through comprehensive legislation, enforcement, and public awareness campaigns. The verdict also highlights the importance of data driven policymaking, directing governments to collect and publish detailed statistics on pedestrian injuries, fatalities, and infrastructure gaps. This data, the Court argued, is essential for designing targeted interventions and evaluating the effectiveness of policies. The Court further emphasized the need for public participation in the creation of the National Pedestrian Law, noting that pedestrians represent a diverse group whose needs vary widely. It encouraged governments to consult urban planners, disability rights groups, school associations, senior citizen organizations, and civil society groups to ensure that the law reflects the lived realities of those who walk daily.
This imbalance has produced alarming consequences, reflected in the steep rise in pedestrian fatalities—from 13,894 in 2015 to 36,526 in 2024—a 163 percent increase that the Court described as a national crisis demanding urgent structural reform. The verdict asserts that the State’s failure to provide safe footpaths, crossings, and traffic calming measures constitutes a breach of constitutional duty. The right to life, the Court emphasized, is not limited to mere survival but includes the right to live with dignity, and dignity cannot exist where citizens must risk their lives simply to walk along a public road. The Court also invoked the principle of equality under Article 14, noting that road design that privileges motorists over pedestrians creates an unjust hierarchy of rights, effectively granting greater protection to those with vehicles while exposing the poor, the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities to disproportionate danger. This recognition of structural inequality is central to the Court’s call for a National Pedestrian Law, which it envisions as a uniform legal framework establishing minimum standards for pedestrian infrastructure, safety protocols, enforcement mechanisms, and accountability systems across all states and urban local bodies. The Court’s verdict also reflects a broader shift in global urban policy, aligning India with international norms that prioritize walkability, sustainability, and inclusive mobility.
The Court also emphasized that pedestrians must be placed at the top of the mobility hierarchy, above two wheelers, cars, and commercial vehicles, because their vulnerability is greatest and their rights are foundational. This hierarchy is not merely symbolic but has practical implications for road design, budget allocation, and enforcement priorities. The Court criticized the long standing practice of widening roads for vehicles while narrowing or eliminating footpaths, calling it a violation of constitutional principles and a reflection of flawed development priorities. The verdict also addresses the issue of accountability, holding that when pedestrian deaths occur due to the absence of proper infrastructure, the State may be liable for compensation under constitutional tort principles. This is a significant expansion of state liability, as it recognizes that negligence in urban planning and road design can constitute a violation of fundamental rights. The Court clarified that such compensation is independent of remedies available under the Motor Vehicles Act, meaning victims or their families may pursue constitutional claims even when criminal or civil proceedings are underway. This dual track accountability framework strengthens the legal position of pedestrians and places greater pressure on authorities to comply with safety standards. The Court’s call for a National Pedestrian Law also reflects a recognition that India’s urbanization is accelerating rapidly, and without a coherent legal framework, the country risks entrenching unsafe and inequitable mobility patterns for generations.
The Court also stressed the importance of education and awareness, calling for nationwide campaigns to promote pedestrian rights, responsible driving, and respect for road rules. The verdict’s implications extend beyond legal and infrastructural reforms; it represents a cultural shift in how mobility is understood in India. For decades, walking has been viewed as a mode of transport associated with poverty, and roads have been treated as spaces primarily for vehicles. The Court challenges this mindset, asserting that walking is not a sign of deprivation but a universal human activity that must be protected and celebrated. By elevating the right to walk to the status of a fundamental right, the Court seeks to reshape public attitudes and encourage a more humane and inclusive approach to mobility. The verdict also has significant implications for environmental policy. Encouraging walking reduces carbon emissions, lowers air pollution, and supports climate resilience. The Court noted that India’s commitments under international climate agreements require a shift toward sustainable mobility, and pedestrian friendly infrastructure is a key component of that shift. The National Pedestrian Law, therefore, is not only a legal reform but also an environmental imperative.
Author is International Dickens Medal Winner. He can be mailed at profratanbhattacharjee@gmail.com
