From the Footpath to Fundamental Right: Inside the Maniyar Iliyaz Verdict

This Blog is Written by Khushi Gupta, 2nd Year, BA LLB, Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida.

Blog 04 | Edition VII

Introduction

As India celebrates 80^th year of independence on August 15, 2026, the right to walk freely remains incomplete for millions of pedestrians. Walking has long been a symbol of freedom, from mahatma Gandhi’s Dandi march to the recent jantar mantar protest. India’s roads have given a space where citizens can exercise their constitutional rights. Yet our footpaths have often remained unsafe and inaccessible for many. This constitutional gap was addressed by the supreme court where Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar recognized the right to walk on a demarcated footpath as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

Why was this Judgment Needed?

India has one of the highest numbers of road accidents and among them pedestrians are the most vulnerable road user. According to Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 4,87,000 road accidents took place, pedestrian death has surged by nearly 163% between 2015 and 2024. These accidents took place because footpaths are often missing, poorly maintained. There are laws to avoid this but they do not adequately secure pedestrians’ constitutional rights. Though the Supreme Court has answered one constitutional gap, it remains unworthy if there is no clear institutional responsibility and demarcated pedestrian infrastructure.

What did the Supreme Court Hold?

The present case arises from a motor accident that took the life of a 5 -year-old child. On the morning of the incident, the child was walking to School with his father when a tanker approached from behind and struck the child, crushing his waist and lower body. Whereupon, the child succumbed shortly. What Initially was a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act later evolved into a significant constitutional ruling. In the judgment it is rightfully mentioned that, the primary “right to move” under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels. Signaling that the issue extended beyond the facts of the case, the matter was re-registered as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It further implemented that the protection of pedestrian right requires coordinated action across multiple governmental authorities.

The Constitutional Confluence of Article 19 and 21

In this judgment, the Supreme Court fundamentally answered one question: what is freedom of movement? The Court held that we need to first disabuse our mind of associating this “right to move” only with movement on wheels and clarified that the right to walk is the primary expression of the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), one that precedes the right to move on wheels. This clarification transformed the pedestrian into a constitutional rights-holder. The Court furthered underscoring the understanding read Article (19)(1)(d) alongside Article 21. Reasoning behind this was freedom to work cannot be enjoyed in isolation unless it can be exercised safely and with dignity.   This interpretation marks a landmark shift in Indian Constitutional jurisprudence. Earlier, disputes involving pedestrian were largely addressed through the lens of law of compensation. But now the Court has moved the conversation from post-accident remedies to preventive constitutional protection. By doing so, it acknowledged that pedestrian safety is an essential component of liberty, dignity, and equal access to public spaces.  This is only a start, recognizing a right is only the beginning. The real meaning of this judgement would be only when it makes a difference in the life of pedestrians. This is where the judgment faces it challenge; it has to changes the experience of millions of pedestrians.

From Constitutional Recognition to Ground Reality 

This Constitutional Right can be seen as a right without infrastructure, just saying something is a right is not enough, if there is no way to make it real. The Supreme Court although recognised the right to walk, the reality across many Indian states is starkly different. Footpaths are often absent, broken, poorly demarcated, or encroached upon, compelling pedestrians to walk alongside the traffic. Children, old people and people with disabilities are among thoe who bear the greatest burden. India does not lack legal provisions, but these measures remain fragmented and arre often not implemented adequately. For example, Rules of the Road Regulations 1989 prohibits parking on footpaths, yet it is not always enforced and different cities has different working mechanism. Similarly, other laws relating to disability rights, urban planning, and street vending seek to regulate the use of public spaces, but they operate independently rather than as part of a coherent pedestrian-rights framework. The Supreme Court well recognized the law but to make it real we need to know who is in charge for making them happen, or who is in charge of making sure that people can walk safely. Whether it is municipal corporations, public works departments, highway authorities, or other government agencies, the absence of clearly defined institutional responsibility risks weakening the practical impact of the Court's landmark declaration.

The Road Ahead 

Recognizing that constitutional rights require institutional support to become meaningful, the supreme Court called for the creation of a dedicated mechanism to plan, enforce, and implement the right to walk. Court while giving example mentioned that how other fundamental rights have been made real i.e., The Right to Education Act does not just declare a right, it names who is responsible, create a regulator, sets out remedies. Rights, duty bearer, remedy, regulator this is the formula the Court is asking Parliament to follow. The judgment directed that copies be forwarded to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, as well as the Law Commission of India for consideration of an appropriate statutory framework. Accessible and effective remedies are granted that are independent of Motor Vehicles Act. By implementing these framework the promise recognized in Maniyar iliyaz be translated into an enforceable reality.

Conclusion

Maniyar iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan is not merely a judgment about footpaths; it is a judgment about the kind of constitutional democracy India aspires to be. For years, pedestrians have not been given the rights they deserve, marginalized by urban planning. By recognizing the right to walk on a demarcated path as an integral part of Artices19(1)(d) and 21, the Supreme Court shifted this perspective. Yet, constitutional recognition alone cannot transform India's streets. The true success of this judgment will depend on whether legislatures enact an effective legal framework, governments would invest in safe and accessible pedestrian infrastructure, and public authorities are held accountable for its implementation. Rights acquire meaning only when they can be exercised in everyday life. As India celebrates 80 years of Independence, it is fitting to remember that some of the nation's defining moments from Gandhi's Dandi March to countless peaceful demonstrations, were shaped by the simple act of walking. The Constitution has now recognized that this act deserves its highest protection. The next step is to ensure that every citizen can exercise that freedom safely, confidently, and with dignity.

(Write to the author at khushigupta6600@gmail.com.)