Author: Palak Mishra, Haveli Institute of Legal Studies and Research, Silvassa
LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/palak-m-0b7ab4371?utm_source=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=member_android
Abstract
For most people, walking is an ordinary part of everyday life. A student walking to school, an employee travelling to work, or an elderly person visiting a nearby place rarely thinks of walking as a legal issue. However, when a person is forced to walk alongside moving vehicles due to the absence of proper footpaths or safe pedestrian spaces, a simple act of movement becomes a matter of public safety and constitutional concern.
A right cannot exist in isolation. When citizens have the freedom to move safely, public authorities carry a corresponding responsibility to create conditions where such movement is practically possible. This idea forms the foundation of the evolving concept of the Right to Walk in India.
Although the Constitution of India does not expressly mention the Right to Walk as a separate provision, its protection emerges through the interpretation of Article 19(1)(d), which guarantees freedom of movement, and Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Over time, Indian courts have expanded these constitutional guarantees to include aspects of dignity, safety, and meaningful access to public spaces.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., 2026 INSC 647, has further highlighted the importance of pedestrian safety and the responsibility of authorities in ensuring safe walking infrastructure. This article examines the legal development of pedestrian rights, judicial principles supporting them, and the role of public authorities in creating safe and accessible urban spaces.
To the Point
The Right to Walk is not expressly mentioned as a separate provision under the Constitution of India. Instead, it has developed through judicial interpretation of existing constitutional rights.
Article 19(1)(d) protects the freedom of movement.
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty and has been judicially interpreted to include the right to live with dignity.
Safe pedestrian movement requires more than physical roads; it requires accessible and reasonably maintained public spaces. Footpaths, pedestrian crossings, and safe walking areas are essential elements of urban infrastructure.
The recognition of pedestrian rights does not mean unrestricted use of roads. It means that citizens should not be deprived of safe movement because of poor planning, negligence, or lack of basic facilities. Public authorities have a corresponding duty to ensure that development remains inclusive and accessible.
Use of Legal Jargon
1. Constitutional Interpretation
The process through which courts interpret constitutional provisions according to changing social realities and emerging legal issues.
2. Correlative Duty
A legal principle stating that every recognised right creates a corresponding obligation upon another authority. In the context of pedestrian rights, the right to safe movement creates responsibilities for public authorities.
3. Administrative Accountability
The responsibility of government bodies and public authorities to perform their duties effectively and remain answerable for failures affecting citizens.
4. Public Law Remedy
A constitutional remedy available against public authorities through writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights.
5. State Obligation
The responsibility of the State and public authorities to take reasonable measures for protecting constitutional rights and public welfare.
The Proof
The Right to Walk is not based on a separate constitutional provision but has developed through the interpretation of existing fundamental rights and judicial principles.
Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement. However, this freedom must have practical meaning. If citizens are unable to move safely due to the absence of proper pedestrian facilities, the effective enjoyment of this right is affected.
Article 21 further strengthens this protection by recognising the right to life and personal liberty. Through judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include dignity, safety, and conditions necessary for meaningful existence.
The responsibility of ensuring safe pedestrian spaces also lies with public authorities responsible for maintaining roads, footpaths, and civic infrastructure. Therefore, the Right to Walk emerges from the combined effect of constitutional guarantees, administrative responsibilities, and judicial recognition.
Case Laws
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750
Facts:
The case concerned the collapse of a municipal clock tower in Delhi, resulting in the death of several people. The issue was whether the municipal authority could be held responsible for failure to maintain a public structure.
Held:
The Supreme Court recognised that public authorities have a duty to maintain structures under their control and may be held responsible when negligence causes harm to citizens.
Legal Significance:
Although not directly related to pedestrian rights, the case established the principle of public authority responsibility towards citizens using public infrastructure.
2. Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545
Facts:
The case involved the removal of pavement dwellers in Mumbai and raised questions regarding the relationship between public spaces and the right to life under Article 21.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood forms part of Article 21 and that actions affecting public spaces must comply with constitutional principles.
Legal Significance:
The judgment contributed to the broader understanding of Article 21 and recognised the constitutional importance of public spaces.
3. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121
Facts:
The case dealt with encroachments on public streets and footpaths and the authority of municipal bodies to regulate such occupation.
Held:
The Supreme Court recognised that streets and footpaths are meant for public use and that municipal authorities can take steps to protect public access.
Legal Significance:
The judgment supports the principle that footpaths serve an important public function and must remain accessible for movement.
4. S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012
Facts:
The proceedings concern road safety measures and seek effective steps to reduce accidents and protect vulnerable road users, including pedestrians.
Held:
The Supreme Court has issued directions regarding road safety and implementation of preventive measures. Since the matter is ongoing, it represents continuing judicial monitoring.
Legal Significance:
The case reflects the growing judicial focus on road safety and the protection of persons using public roads.
5. Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., 2026 INSC 647
Facts:
The case arose from a motor accident involving a child walking with his father. The proceedings raised concerns regarding pedestrian safety and the need for adequate infrastructure to ensure safe movement.
Held:
The Supreme Court highlighted that safe pedestrian movement is an important aspect of public safety and emphasised the responsibility of authorities to create conditions where citizens can move safely.
Legal Significance:
The judgment represents an important development in highlighting pedestrian safety and the duties of public authorities. It reinforces the principle that authorities have a corresponding obligation to protect citizens using public spaces.
Conclusion
The recognition of the Right to Walk reflects the evolving nature of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Although not expressly mentioned as a separate constitutional provision, its foundation lies in the interpretation of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, supported by judicial decisions and the duties of public authorities.
Safe pedestrian movement is not merely a matter of urban planning; it is connected with dignity, accessibility, and constitutional accountability. As Indian cities continue to develop, public spaces must be designed to protect the needs of all citizens. The Right to Walk therefore represents the principle that development must balance infrastructure growth with the safety and freedom of individuals using public spaces.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Is the Right to Walk expressly mentioned as a separate provision in the Constitution of India?
The Constitution does not expressly mention the Right to Walk as a separate provision. However, its protection has developed through judicial interpretation of Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21.
Q2. Does the Right to Walk mean that a person can walk anywhere without restrictions?
No. The right refers to safe and reasonable access to public pathways. It remains subject to traffic regulations, public safety requirements, and lawful restrictions imposed by authorities.
Q3. Who is responsible for maintaining footpaths and pedestrian facilities?
Municipal corporations, local authorities, and concerned government agencies are responsible for planning, maintaining, and regulating public infrastructure, including pedestrian facilities.
Q4. Can citizens approach courts if unsafe pedestrian conditions violate their rights?
Yes. Citizens may approach constitutional courts through writ remedies under Articles 32 and 226 where there is a violation of fundamental or legal rights by public authorities.
Q5. Why is the recognition of the Right to Walk important for Indian cities?
It encourages inclusive urban planning and ensures that development considers the safety and accessibility needs of all citizens, especially vulnerable road users.
