Footpaths are the Right, Not a Luxury: Fundamental Right to Walk Safely

Introduction: Is the Right to Walk Safely a Fundamental Right?

A pedestrian should not have to choose between walking on an obstructed footpath and risking life by walking alongside fast-moving traffic. Yet, in many Indian cities and towns, the absence of usable footpaths, unauthorised parking, encroachments and inadequate pedestrian infrastructure make this an everyday reality.

First, in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, by an order dated 14 May 2025, the Court reaffirmed that the right to use unobstructed, accessible and properly maintained footpaths is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court subsequently went further in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, decided on 19 June 2026. It expressly declared that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution.

I. What Was the Background of the 2025 Proceedings?

In S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was dealing with a long-running public interest litigation concerning road safety and the responsibilities of public authorities.

An application brought the specific issue of pedestrian safety to the Court's attention. It highlighted three central concerns:

II. What Directions and Principles Has the Supreme Court Established?

1. States and Union Territories Must Frame Pedestrian Safety Guidelines

In its 2025 order, the Supreme Court directed States and Union Territories to formulate guidelines for proper pedestrian infrastructure.

These guidelines were to take account of relevant High Court directions and standards issued by the Indian Roads Congress.

2. Footpaths Must Be Properly Maintained and Free from Obstructions

The Court emphasised that the mere physical existence of a footpath is not sufficient if pedestrians cannot use it safely.

A footpath occupied by parked vehicles, blocked by encroachments or left in an unusable condition fails to provide the intended protection.

3. Footpaths Must Be Accessible to Persons with Disabilities

Accessibility was a central concern in the 2025 proceedings.

Footpaths must be designed and maintained so that persons with disabilities can use them. This requires attention to physical accessibility and the removal of obstacles that make pedestrian movement difficult or impossible.

4. Public Authorities Have a Duty to Provide and Maintain Footpaths

The 2026 judgment identified the duty bearers responsible for securing the right to walk.

These include urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats.

5. The Right to Walk Takes Priority over Motorised Traffic

A central principle of the 2026 ruling is that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths takes priority over the movement of motorised vehicles.

The 2026 judgment also recognised that a violation of the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths may entitle citizens to seek constitutional and legal remedies against the authorities responsible.

III. What Can Citizens Do When Footpaths Are Missing or Obstructed?

Depending on the location and circumstances, citizens may consider the following steps:

1. Document the problem. Record the location, photographs and nature of the obstruction or unsafe condition, where it is safe and lawful to do so.

2. Identify the responsible authority. Depending on the road, this may be a municipal corporation, municipality, panchayat, urban development authority or road-owning agency.

3. Submit a written complaint. Describe the obstruction or absence of a usable footpath and request inspection, removal of encroachments or appropriate remedial action.

4. Preserve records. Keep copies of complaints, acknowledgement numbers, replies and photographs documenting the condition.

5. Consider legal remedies where necessary. If the problem persists and affects constitutional rights, a suitable legal remedy may be considered based on the facts, jurisdiction and applicable law.

IV. What Is the Significance of These Judgments for Indian Cities?

First, pedestrian infrastructure must be treated as a matter of constitutional importance rather than a secondary amenity.

Second, accessibility must be built into the planning and maintenance of public spaces. Footpaths should not merely exist on paper; they must be usable by the people for whom they are intended.

Third, public authorities must be accountable for the condition of pedestrian infrastructure. The 2025 directions required guidelines and compliance reports, while the 2026 judgment recognised enforceable duties and potential legal remedies.

Finally, the judgments challenge a vehicle-centric approach to public roads. A functioning transport system must accommodate people who walk, including those who cannot afford private transport and those who depend on walking for daily activities.

V. Conclusion: The Right to Life Must Extend to Everyday Public Spaces

The Supreme Court's decisions in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappanestablish an important constitutional principle: pedestrian safety is not merely a matter of convenience or urban aesthetics.

The 2025 order reaffirmed that unobstructed and accessible footpaths are an essential aspect of Article 21 and directed governments to develop guidelines for pedestrian safety. The 2026 judgment expressly recognised the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths, gave that right priority over motorised movement and identified the responsibilities of public authorities.

How NyayNiti Can Help

Unsafe footpaths, persistent encroachments and failures to maintain accessible public infrastructure can raise important legal and administrative questions.

NyayNiti Associates assists with legal research, public-law issues, administrative grievances and litigation concerning the enforcement of legal rights. The appropriate course of action depends on the location, responsible authority, evidence and applicable law.

Contact NyayNiti to understand the legal options that may be available in a matter involving pedestrian safety or public infrastructure.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. The availability of a remedy depends on the facts, jurisdiction, evidence and applicable law. Obtain case-specific legal advice before initiating proceedings.