Supreme Court Makes Walking on Footpaths a Fundamental Right — Urban Policy Impact

Overview The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 by declaring the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right. The judgment came from a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar while hearing a compensation case for a five‑year‑old boy killed by a tanker lorry in Karnataka. Key Developments The court recognised pedestrians as vulnerable road users and ordered that footpaths must be kept free of encroachments. It highlighted the absence of a single national law on pedestrian safety, noting that responsibility is fragmented among municipal laws , town‑planning statutes and design guidelines. The judgment may clash with the Street Vendors Act 2014 and could be used to curb informal commercial activity on sidewalks. It draws a parallel with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 , suggesting that consistent enforcement and public messaging are needed for behavioural change. Despite the Swachh Bharat drive, littering and poor footpath maintenance persist, indicating a gap between law and implementation. Important Facts Most Indian cities lack continuous, unobstructed footpaths. Where they exist, they are often occupied by parked vehicles, street vendors, utility poles, and construction debris. The court observed that motorists frequently treat pedestrians as a "nuisance" and that walking has become an inconvenience in the age of motorised transport. Compensation for the Karnataka tragedy may set a precedent for future cases, turning pedestrian safety into a compensatory claim rather than a proactive right. UPSC Relevance This development touches upon several UPSC syllabus areas. Under GS2: Polity , candidates should understand the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting constitutional rights and the interplay between central legislation and municipal laws . Under GS3: Economy , the impact of fragmented governance on urban infrastructure investment is pertinent. For GS4: Ethics , the moral responsibility of the state to provide safe public spaces and the risk of criminalising the urban poor are key discussion points. Way Forward To translate the court’s "nudge" into tangible change, the government must allocate dedicated funds for pedestrian infrastructure, enforce existing municipal regulations, and create a unified national pedestrian safety law. Simultaneously, public awareness campaigns should promote the cultural respect of footpaths, similar to successful anti‑smoking drives under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 . Coordination between urban local bodies, law‑enforcement agencies, and civil society will be essential to prevent the misuse of the judgment for gentrification or punitive actions against informal workers.