Holding

The Supreme Court held that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, imposing a correlative duty on authorities, and that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation, which must be calculated as per Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, resulting in a total award of Rs 11,44,628.

Summary

The appellant, a father, lost his five‑year‑old son when a tanker struck the boy as they walked to school on a road that had no footpath or pedestrian crossing. The father filed a claim for Rs 25,00,000 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs 7,82,000 with interest; the High Court later reduced the award to Rs 4,70,000. The appeal before this Court raised two questions: whether the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation. The Court held that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, with a correlative duty on urban development authorities, municipal bodies and panchayats to provide and maintain footpaths. It further held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not protect this right and that a statutory framework and regulator are required. Applying the principles laid down in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha and the Minimum Wages Act, the Court recalculated the compensation to Rs 11,44,628. The Court disposed of the appeals, restored the higher award, and directed the case to be re‑numbered as a petition under Article 32 for the fundamental right to walk.

Issues considered

Whether the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India
Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.13, s. Art.19(1)(a), s. Art.19(1)(b), s. Art.19(1)(c), s. Art.19(1)(d), s. Art.21, s. Art.51-A
Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017s. Regulation 2(o), s. Regulation 3, s. Regulation 5, s. Regulation 9
National Food Security Act, 2013s. 24, s. 25, s. 26, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
Right to Information Act, 2005s. 12, s. 15, s. 19, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 38, s. 40

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the right to walk is a Fundamental Right; whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and Art.21 on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads, a fundamental right: Held: The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution – It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed u/Art.19(1)(d), r/w Art.19(1)(a), Art.19(1) (b), Art.19(1) (c) and Art.21 –

Subjects

Right to walk is a Fundamental RightRight to walkRight to moveRight of movementArticle 19(1)(d)Article 21 of the ConstitutionFundamental Right to WalkRight to demarcated footpathsFundamental right to walk on demarcated footpathViolation of right to walk on demarcated footpathsDemarcated footpathsMovement by motorised vehiclesCompensation recalculatedFootpathPedestrian crossingUrban development authoritiesmunicipal corporationsmunicipalitiespanchayatsHit by a tankerFive-year old boy diedReduction of compensation not justified

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 175 : 2026 INSC 647

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr.
v.
P. Ayyappan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4665-4666 of 2025)
19 June 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the right to walk is a Fundamental Right; whether the
High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c)
and Art.21 – Right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside
motorised roads, a fundamental right:
Held: The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the
Constitution – It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed
u/Art.19(1)(d), r/w Art.19(1)(a), Art.19(1) (b), Art.19(1) (c) and
Art.21 – The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep
the right to demarcated footpaths – These rights are primary and
shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles – The
fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has a correlative
duty – 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, as walking
is integral to life – The violation of the right to walk on demarcated
footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal
remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation –
This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Paras 4,5, 20(a)-(c)]

Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and
Art.21 – Right to walk on demarcated footpaths, a fundamental
176 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

right – Need for legal framework not only for declaring the
right, but also to recognise the duty bearers; establishment
of a regulatory body:
Held: The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not and has never been
the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk – In
fact, it has been an impediment and, in many ways, undermined
the precious rights of walkers – Though the right to walk on
demarcated footpaths is integral to Arts.21 and 19(1) (d), there is
no legislation – It is compelling to lay down a statutory framework
not only for declaring the right, but also to recognise the duty
bearers – The Act must protect, enhance, and provide quick
remedies for violations, and also establish a full-time regulator
to plan, enforce, and implement this precious right – Registry
to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing
and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and
Highways, to reflect on the compelling necessity for initiating
the necessary legal framework – A copy may also be sent to
the Law Commission for examining the statutory framework for
protecting the right, identifying the duty bearers and provisioning
remedies – Constitutional Courts also have a duty to declare with
clarity the existence of this fundamental right and ensure that
the existing civil and the constitutional remedies are accessible
and effective – To enhance and effectuate the fundamental right
to walk on demarcated footpaths, it is necessary to establish a
regulatory body – Role of, discussed – Registry to re-number this
case as a petition u/Art.32 of the Constitution by changing the
cause title to Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath – The
Government of India, through the Ministries of Housing and Urban
Affairs, Rural Development and Road Transport and Highways,
impleaded as a party in person. [Paras 6, 13, 16, 21]

Motor Accidents Claim – Reduction of compensation, when not
justified – Appellant’s five-year old son died as a result of the
injuries after he was hit by a tanker while they were walking
towards his school – Claim petition filed by appellant for
compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- – MACT granted Rs.7,82,000/-
with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till
realisation – Appeal filed by the appellant as well as the
Insurance Company, High Court dismissed the appellant’s
appeal and, while allowing the respondent’s appeal, reduced
the compensation to Rs. 4,70,000/- – Interference with:
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 177

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.

Held: High Court erred in reducing the compensation granted by
MACT – In Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, involving a similar
factual situation in which the deceased minor was 6 years old, this
Court fixed the child’s daily income at Rs.223/- and, by referring
to the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
it prescribed the wages payable to a skilled worker for the year
2014 – Consequently, the monthly income was calculated at
Rs. 6,690/-, and the deceased’s annual income was taken as
Rs. 80,280/- (6,690 × 12) – After adding 40% towards future
prospects, the annual income was assessed as Rs.1,12,392/-
(80,280 + 32,112) – Upon deduction of 50% towards personal and
living expenses, the annual loss of dependency was determined
as Rs.56,196/- – Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of
dependency was computed as Rs.10,11,528/- – Applying the
same to the instant case, the compensation is recalculated
as Rs.10,11,528/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.96,800/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate
and Rs. 18,150 towards funeral expenses –Appellant entitled to
compensation of Rs.11,44,628/- – Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
[Paras 18,19]

Case Law Cited
Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, 2025 INSC 1244 – relied on.
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 295/2012;
Lucknow Public School, Eldico v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026
INSC 422 – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Minimum Wages
Act, 1948; Motor Vehicles Act 1939; Right of Children to free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009; The National Food Security Act,
2013; Right to Information Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles (Driving)
Regulations, 2017; Specific Relief Act, 1963.

List of Keywords
Right to walk is a Fundamental Right; Right to walk; Right to move;
Right of movement; Article 19(1)(d); Article 21 of the Constitution;
Fundamental Right to Walk; Right to demarcated footpaths;
Fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpath; Violation of
178 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

right to walk on demarcated footpaths; Demarcated footpaths;
Movement by motorised vehicles; Compensation recalculated;
Footpath; Pedestrian crossing; Urban development authorities,
municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats; Hit
by a tanker; Five-year old boy died; Reduction of compensation
not justified.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
4665-4666 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2024 of the High Court
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in MFA Nos. 103294 and
103254 of 2016

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Mrs. Supreeta
Sharanagouda, Mamidipudi Venkatarama Mukunda.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Zorawar Singh, Jayant Rastogi, Shubham, Abhisth Kumar.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

1. Like any young father, the appellant lovingly readied his five-year-old
son and left home at 9 am to drop him at the neighbourhood school.
Who could have ever imagined that it would be the last walk with his
son? As father and son were walking towards the school, a tanker
came from behind and struck the boy, crushing his waist and lower
body. He succumbed to the injuries.
2. Take it for granted, there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian
crossing.
3. Accidents like this continue to occur, perhaps they are inevitable till
we restructure our rights regime as regards access to roads and
recognise their correlative duties. Till then, we will continue to cope
with these tragedies by routinely transforming them into FIRs and
Motor Accidents Claims. We are not referring to road safety, for this
Court is deeply concerned about it and is, in fact, monitoring the
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 179

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.

implementation of safety guidelines1. The issue is something more
fundamental, and it is in recognition of the simplest of the simple
human activity- “Walking”. While the right to walk is inextricably
connected to life, our Constitution recognises and guarantees it as a
fundamental right – “All citizens shall have the right…to move freely
throughout the territory of India”.2
4. It is necessary, rather compelling, that we first disabuse our minds of
associating this “right to move” only with movement on wheels. We
have started walking long before wheels were put on our path. The
primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental
Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels and
this precious right must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and
well demarcated footpath. The citizen’s fundamental right to walk
on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over
movement by motorised vehicles.
5. It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognizing and securing
this “right to walk”. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination,
and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are
suitable for motorised vehicles. It could also be elitism to start with,
for machines with wheels were only for the rich, but as economies
progressed and cheaper motor vehicles were introduced, the entire
spectrum of motorised transportation dominated the roads, pushed
aside the walkers to the extent that they are treated as a nuisance
for the drivers who routinely run over the walkers and their footpaths.
This should stop from now on as we declare the fundamental right
to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads.
6. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not and has never been the statute
that recognises the fundamental right to walk. In fact, the Motor
Vehicles Act has been an impediment and, in many ways, undermined
the precious rights of walkers. The absence of safe and comfortable
footpaths to walk on, and even when they exist, their subjugation to
motor transport, has been a civilizational problem.
7. It is not at all difficult to imagine how a wide, well-demarcated and
uninterrupted footpath can change the beauty of and equitable

1 S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 295/2012; this Court also passed certain guidelines in
In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 INSC 388 as well.
2 Article 19(1)(d).
180 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

access to our cities and towns - this could truly be transformative
of our urban and rural living. In reality, how much does it take to
create a well-demarcated footpath wherever a road exists? All that
the fundamental right to walk demands is a comfortable space for
an easy and carefree walk. Should this not be the minimum of the
minimum duty that a municipal authority owes to the citizens?
8. Walking has always triggered the Indian imagination- it has deep
cultural,3 social,4 religious,5 political,6 and reformative7 roots. Walking
is a struggle for the not so fortunate, meditation in motion for many,
resistance for others, discovery for the inquisitive, a cohesive strategy
for sharp socio-political minds. It certainly did inspire and ignite
some of the ideals of the freedom struggle – which we have a duty
to cherish Article 51-A of the Constitution. In that sense, walking is
not just motion, it certainly embodies expressional, congregational
and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b) and
Article 19 (1)(c). Unfortunately, we have failed to recognize these
aspects to such an extent that the phrase “pedestrian” has acquired
pejorative shades. We labour to emphasize the freedom to walk
subject to reasonable restrictions, only to ensure that access to
common spaces- in both urban areas and rural areas is distributed
in such a way that it is not a monopoly of the motorized class alone.
9. Though late in the day, we must affirm and secure to our citizens this
fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths. Clear articulation
and declaration of such a right is necessary to recognise the
correlative duty to provision and maintain footpaths. The duty bearers
are the Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations,
Municipalities, and even Panchayats.
10. If a road exists, there must then be a duty to ensure that a footpath
is demarcated and maintained for the walkers. This is an enforceable

3 For instance, the Nagar Sankirtan, a traditional neighbourhood procession where communities walk
through streets singing devotional folk songs to reclaim public spaces as sites of shared cultural and
musical heritage.
4 For instance, the Pandharpur Wari, an 800-year-old pilgrimage that temporarily dissolves caste
hierarchies as thousands walk together in egalitarian devotion.
5 For instance, the Kanwar Yatra, an annual monsoon trek where devotees of Lord Shiva carry sacred
Ganges water over hundreds of miles as an act of physical penance.
6 For instance, the Dandi March, when Mahatma Gandhi’s 241-mile padayatra transformed a simple act
of walking into a powerful tool of anti-colonial resistance.
7 For instance, the Bhoodan Movement, led by Vinoba Bhave, who walked over 70,000 km to persuade
landowners to voluntarily redistribute land to the landless.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 181

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.

duty. The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall
override the privilege of a motorised vehicle.
11. Part III of our Constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights has a
unique relationship with Parliament and State Legislatures. While
it injuncts and limits the legislature from making “laws that are
inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights”8, it also
envisages a positive role for the legislature to effectuate the exercise
and enjoyment of the fundamental rights. Following this, Parliament
and State Legislatures have enacted laws effectuating each of the
fundamental rights. Modern legislatures have devised and adopted a
statutory regime that not only reiterates the concerned fundamental
right but also recognises the duty bearers and provisions legal
remedies. Apart from the declaration, recognition, and provision of
the right, duty, and remedy, modern statutes have been entrenching
a new character of institutional governance by establishing regulatory
bodies. These bodies institutionalise memory through perpetual
seal and succession, institutionalise expertise by incorporating
specialisation, institutionalise diversity through composition and also
institutionalise integrity through accountability. For example, the 2009
enactment, the Right to Education Act, declares the fundamental right
to free and compulsory elementary education under Article 21 A in
Sections 3-5.9 The Act recognises the duty bearers as the appropriate
government, the local authority, the neighbourhood schools, parents,
and the primary school teachers.10 The remedies are provided under
Section 32, and the National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights11 is recognised as the regulator.
12. Similarly, the National Food Security Act, 2013, recognises the
basic human sustenance under Article 21 in Sections 3-7.12 The Act
obligates the Central, State Governments, and the local authorities to
procure, allocate, and deliver subsidised foodgrains.13 Remedies are
provided under Chapter VII, and the Food Commissions alongside
District Grievance Redressal Officers (DGROs), are recognised as

8 Article 13.
9 Chapter II, The Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
10 Lucknow Public School, Eldico v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 422.
11 Section 31, RTE Act, 2009.
12 Chapter II (Sections 3–7), The National Food Security Act, 2013.
13 Sections 24, 25 and 26, The National Food Security Act, 2013.
182 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the regulators.14 On similar lines, the Right to Information Act, 2009,
declares the right to information under Sections 3 and 4, recognises
the duty bearers as the Public Authorities, the Heads of Departments,
and the designated Public Information Officers (PIOs).15 The remedies
against non-disclosure or delay are provided under Section 19, and
the Central and State Information Commissions are recognised as
the regulators.16
13. Insofar as the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is concerned,
though it is integral to Articles 21 and 19(1) (d), there is no legislation.
It is compelling to lay down a statutory framework not only for declaring
the right, but also to recognise the duty bearers. The Act must protect,
enhance, and provide quick remedies for violations, and also establish
a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this precious
right. We direct the Registry to send a copy of our judgment to the
Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road
Transport and Highways, to reflect on the compelling necessity for
initiating the necessary legal framework. A copy may also be sent
to the Law Commission for examining the statutory framework for
protecting the right, identifying the duty bearers and provisioning
remedies. Constitutional Courts also have a duty to declare with clarity
the existence of this fundamental right and ensure that the existing
civil and the constitutional remedies are accessible and effective.
14. We have clarified at the very outset that the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is not a legislation for protecting the right to walk on the
footpath. Its predecessor, the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, was enacted
with the primary concern of the State to standardise commercial
transport and to create a revenue-generating system through
registration, licensing, and permits. Its successor the present
1988 Act, continues the same tradition of laying down the entire
infrastructure for licensing of drivers of motor vehicles17, licensing
of conductors of stage carriages18, registration of motor vehicles19,

14 Section 14 and Section 15, The National Food Security Act, 2013.
15 Section 5, The Right to Information Act, 2005.
16 Section 12 and Section 15, The Right to Information Act, 2005.
17 Chapter II, Sections 3 to 28.
18 Chapter III, Sections 29 to 38.
19 Chapter IV, Sections 39 to 65.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 183

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.

control of transport vehicles20, special provisions relating to state
transport undertakings21, construction, equipment and maintenance
of motor vehicles22, control of traffic23, insurance of motor vehicles24,
claims tribunals25 and such other provisions. The Motor Vehicles Act
is built upon “vehicle” as the subject of the legislation, while “human”
interests are incidental, which a motor vehicle must avoid violating –
that’s all, and no further. In its discourse, the right of a pedestrian is
incidental; the mainstay of this legislation is the Motor Vehicle. In the
year 2017, the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways notified i.e.,
on 23.06.2017, the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, which
defines Road User to include a person driving or travelling on the
road in a vehicle or otherwise and a pedestrian (Regulation 2(o)).
Regulation 3 contemplates a duty of a vehicle towards road users
and general public. Regulation 5 imposes a duty on drivers to take
special care and precautions to ensure safety of vulnerable road
users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children etc. Regulation 9 speaks
about precautions to be taken at intersections where there is inter
alia a pedestrian crossing. These regulations are nothing more than
guiding principles for a motor vehicle driver, they neither recognise
the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths nor prioritise
the right to footpath over a motorised road. Unfortunately, as of today,
even under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Parliament has not put
in place a full time regulatory body for motor transport. The Transport
Authorities contemplated under Chapter V are not regulatory bodies.
This Court has long been struggling to squeeze in pedestrian rights
in the nooks and crannies of the Motor Vehicles Act and the attempt
is still continuing with monitoring the implementation of its directions
issued since 2012.26
15. It is important to recognise that if the fundamental right to walk on
a demarcated footpath is violated, a citizen is entitled to enforce
restitutionary remedy. This remedy is distinct from that of the claim that

20 Chapter V, Sections 66 to 96.
21 Chapter VI, Sections 97 to 108
22 Chapter VII, Sections 109-111.
23 Chapter VIII, Sections 112 to 138.
24 Chapter XI, Sections 145 to 164.
25 Chapter XII, Sections 165 to 176.
26 Directions issued in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 295/2012.
184 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

a person may make under the Motor Vehicles Act. The restitutionary
remedy under the Constitution or under Sections 38-40 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 for the enforcement of public duties can be enforced
against the Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations,
Municipalities, or the Panchayats.
16. To enhance and effectuate the fundamental right to walk on
demarcated footpaths, it is necessary to establish a regulatory body.
Working with perpetual seal and succession, such a regulator will
develop and retain institutional memory so that it can act on the
basis of the experience, data, and information it has gathered and
processed. Institutional expertise is critical, and such a regulator
will employ human resources with domain expertise and talent. The
regulator will maintain institutional integrity by taking independent
and objective decisions without governmental or industrial control.
These values shall flow naturally if there is institutional transparency
and accountability. It is in this perspective that we need to effectuate
the fundamental right to walk.
17. Returning to the facts of the present case, the claim petition filed
by the father for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- was considered
and MACT, by its award dated 30.05.2016, granted Rs. 7,82,000/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till
realisation. In an appeal filed by the appellant as well as the Insurance
Company, by the order impugned before us, the High Court dismissed
the appellant’s appeal and, while allowing the respondent’s appeal,
reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,70,000/-.
18. We are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in
reducing the compensation granted by the MACT. In a recent decision
in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha27, involving a similar factual
situation in which the deceased minor was 6 years old, this Court
fixed the child’s daily income at Rs. 223/- and, by referring to the
notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it prescribed
the wages payable to a skilled worker for the year 2014. Consequently,
the monthly income was calculated at Rs. 6,690/-, and the deceased’s
annual income was taken as Rs. 80,280/- (6,690 × 12). After adding
40% towards future prospects, the annual income was assessed as
Rs. 1,12,392/- (80,280 + 32,112). Upon deduction of 50% towards

27 2025 INSC 1244.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 185

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.

personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency was
determined as Rs. 56,196/-. Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss
of dependency was computed as Rs. 10,11,528/-. Applying the same
to the instant case, the compensation is required to be recalculated
as an amount of Rs. 10,11,528/- towards loss of dependency, an
amount of Rs. 96,800/- towards loss of consortium, an amount of
Rs. 18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,150 towards funeral
expenses.
19. In this view of the matter, the appellant(s) will be entitled to
compensation of Rs. 11,44,628/- and the amount shall be paid within
a period of two months from today.
20. Returning to the discussion and the articulation of the right, the
correlative duty and followed by the constitutional statutory remedies,
in conclusion, we declare as under:
a. The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the
Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)
(b), Article 19(1) (c) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right
to demarcated footpaths. These rights are primary and shall
have priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
b. The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has
a correlative duty. 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, as walking is integral to life.
c. The violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will
entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies
against duty bearers for restitution and compensation. This
remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
21. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.
Mamidipudi V Mukunda, learned counsel appointed as amicus
curiae. We direct the Registry to re-number this case as a petition
186 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

under Article 32 of the Constitution by changing the cause title to
Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath. The Government of
India, through the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural
Development and Road Transport and Highways, is impleaded as a
party in person. We request Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG, to assist the court.
22. The appeal(s) and pending application(s), if any, are disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey