Right To Walk As A Fundamental Right: Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. VS. P. Ayyappan & Ors.

The act of walking, often considered the simplest form of movement, has now become a question of constitutional significance. It raises a critical question: can unsafe public spaces restrict a citizen’s fundamental freedoms? Pedestrian safety remains one of the most challenging issuesin urban mobility. Footpaths in Indian cities are quite unsafe-encroached by street vendors, parked vehicles, garbagebins, utility poles, open drains,and the like-rendering walking hazardous.

Considering this challenge, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., is of significant importance and marks a positive development in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 19 June 2026, declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(1)(d) and 21, holding that this right is primary and takes priority over motorised vehicle movement.

Initially, the case was filed as an appeal regarding compensation for the death of a five-year-old child in a road accident under the Motor Vehicles Act.However, the apex court proceeded to raise and deliberate a more constitutional issue: whether the right to walk without any risk along the roads and footpaths that have been delineated, belongs to the category of fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. The recognition of the right to walk as a crucial element of the freedoms of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution transformed the discussion from road accident compensation to the constitutional duty of the State to provide for pedestrian facilities.

This article analyses the facts of the case, the Court’s reasoning, the constitutional principles involved, and the judgment’s significance for pedestrian rights, municipal governance, and urban planning in India.

How a Road Accident Became a Constitutional Question

The appellant’s son was walking with his father toward a neighbourhood school when a tanker approaching from behind struck the child on a stretch of road that had neither a footpath nor a marked pedestrian crossing. The boy did not survive his injuries. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹7,82,000 against a claim of ₹25,00,000. On appeal, the High Court reduced this figure further to ₹4,70,000, prompting the father to approach the Supreme Court, which later enhanced the compensation to ₹11,44,628.

The case raised three important questions:

• Whether there was justification for the reduction of the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)?
• Whether the freedom to use safe and demarcated footpaths comes within the ambit of the fundamental rights provided by Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and 21 of the Constitution?
• Whether the State and the Municipal Authorities have a constitutional duty to ensure safe walking facilities, such as footpaths?

It started as a claim arising from a fatal road accident and soon grew into a landmark constitutional case. Before the Supreme Court, the focus extended beyond compensation to the recognition of the right to walk safely as a fundamental right.

When Walking Became a Constitutional Right

The Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to walk in the present case builds upon its earlier decision in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India(2012). In Rajaseekaran, the court emphasized the importance of road safety and directed authorities to improve pedestrian infrastructure, including safe and accessible footpaths. While that decision focused on policy measures and administrative reforms, Maniyar Iliyaz went a step further by recognizing the right to walk safely as an aspect of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.The Court also noted in this case that the Motor Vehicles Act has never been the statute that protects the right to walk; pedestrians remain incidental under it.

The Court held that the right to walk is integral to the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d) read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and Article 21. It further declared that this right is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles. Moreover, Article 21 guarantees the right to live with dignity, and the element of security and safety in mobility becomes inevitable in such an instance.

New Vision for Public Spaces

The judgment is not just about acknowledging the right to walk. It reiterates the point that public roads and sidewalks exist for the benefit of all people and that the State, as the custodian of such properties, needs to ensure that they are safe, accessible, and free of any encroachments.

This judgment emphasizes the obligation of the State under the Public Trust Doctrine to safeguard public roads and footpaths.Encroachments on footpaths infringe upon the constitutional rights of pedestrians.Hence, it is the responsibility of municipal corporations to ensure the construction and protection of pedestrian infrastructure.The Court declared a correlative enforceable duty on urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats: wherever a road exists, they must demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths.Violation of the right to walk entitles citizens to constitutional and legal remedies for restitution and compensation, independent of remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court made it clear thatroads are meant for people; they are not meant for cars only.The provision of safe and clear footpaths is essential in ensuring access and inclusivity in public spaces.This decision changes the perspective of urban development by moving the emphasis from vehicle-oriented development to people-oriented urban development.

Beyond the Courtroom: Why This Decision Matters

The decision is not only limited to solving the issue at hand but has far-reaching consequences for the rights enshrined in the Constitution, urban governance, and public administration. It reiterates the fact that ensuring pedestrian safety is the joint responsibility of the State and local governments. The broader implications of this judgment can be seen from different perspectives:

For the Citizens

• Improves the constitutional protection of pedestrians.
• Confirms that safe walking is an integral part of one’s daily routine.

For Urban Planning

• Promotes people-oriented instead of vehicle-oriented infrastructure.
• Highlights the importance of safe walkways and public spaces.

For Future Public Interest Cases

• Creates a constitutional argument against unsafe pedestrian infrastructure.
• Broadens the ambit of PILs on the rights of pedestrians.

For Public Administration

• Enhances municipal authorities’ responsibilities for the upkeep of public roads.
• Highlights the State’s responsibility for protecting pedestrians through effective urban governance.

For Constitutional & Legislative Follow-up

• Converts the matter into an ongoing Article 32 petition titled ‘Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath’.
• Places a clear responsibility on the Union Ministries of Housing & Urban Affairs, Rural Development and Road Transport & Highways, and on theLaw Commission,to create a dedicated statutory framework (including a regulatory body)for the right to walk.

The implications of this decision are wider than just the courtroom, as it alters the perception regarding the rights of pedestrians in India. In recognizing that walking safely is a constitutional matter, the judgment places greater responsibility on public authoritiesto ensure that safe public places are built.

Constitutional Recognition with Practical Challenges

Although this ruling is a great achievement in acknowledging the rights of pedestrians, the mere constitutional acknowledgment does not necessarily resolve all the problems that have persisted for long regarding urban mobility. The proper implementation of this right will be contingent upon the municipal administration’s capacity to deal with matters like poorly maintained walkways, encroachment, and the lack of proper facilities for pedestrians.

This ruling places a bigger burden on the government and the local administration to implement the constitutional rights practically. However, certain challenges like resource constraints, ineffective enforcement mechanisms, and other demands for urban spaces might impact its implementation. Consequently, the success of this ruling would be determined by continued administrative efforts and effective policies. Additionally, the judgment remains subject to ongoing monitoring through the converted Article 32 petition and the long-pending S. Rajaseekaran proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court judgment in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. is not merely about pedestrian safety, but a reminder of the need for constitutional principles to become a part of the lived experience of citizens. By recognizing the right to walk on demarcated footpathsas a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and 21 of the Constitution, the Court has placed a clear constitutional duty on public authorities.

Yet, the real importance of this judgment would not be in the recognition of the right alone, but rather in the implementation of this constitutional right. Properly constructed footpaths, streets that are usable by pedestrians, and good governance at the level of municipalities have become a matter of ensuring the realization of the fundamental constitutional freedoms.

As India continues to urbanize, the above-mentioned judgment can prove particularly useful in making urban planning constitutionally sound. After all, protecting the right to walk means creating public spaces that are safe, accessible, and inclusive for all.

Author Details: Pragya Jha, 4th-year Law Student, Lovely Professional University, Punjab 

References

1. Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., 2026 INSC 647
2. The Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d)and Article 21.
3. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012.
4. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), Government of India – Road Safety Guidelines and Reports.