Are Footpaths More Than Safe Spaces?

Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan (2026), has held that a footpath's relevance is far greater than that of a narrow strip of land where the less fortunate take cover from vehicles speeding on multi-lane motorways. 

•  The court declared the right to walk on a comfortable and safe footpath as holding priority over motor vehicle movement, and called upon Parliament and State legislatures to enact a statutory framework and establish a full-time regulator to protect this right. 

Does the Ruling Disconnect the Footpath from the Theme of Accidents? 

• Justice Narasimha's judgment deliberately divorces the footpath from the theme of motor accidents. The court held that the sole aim of a footpath is not to avoid accidents — the pathways have an identity and a purpose of their own. 
• The footpath, in the court's view, caters to the most essential and fundamental of rights: the pleasure of walking. The court said the presence of a broad footpath is a reflection of civilisational advancement and respect for the freedom to walk. The tracks offer the public access to urban spaces through movement by walking. 
• The judgment further reasoned that footpaths suffer from what environmental law describes as the "tragedy of the commons" — the degradation of a precious resource when many individuals use it simultaneously. Safe and broad footpaths have become a scarce resource, riddled with encroachments, garbage, and pavement trade.  
• The court noted that broad footpaths, besides amplifying the beauty of cities, must also enable equitable access to all, and that nothing should be done to thwart the public's free access to common spaces. 

Does Walking Still Hold Significance in the Indian Imagination? 

• The court held that the act of walking has had diverse roles in the Indian imagination across history. Walking was a struggle for the not-so-fortunate, a meditation in motion for many, a resistance for others, a discovery for the inquisitive, and a cohesive strategy for sharp socio-political minds. From the first sparks that ignited the national struggle for freedom to the complexities of modern politics, the idea of walking as a means of expressing an opinion or drawing public attention has remained a constant. 
• Walking, the court observed, was not just motion — it embodied the fundamental freedoms of speech and expression, of peaceful protest, and the right to form associations and unions for gaining the just rights of workers. 
• Justice Narasimha further observed that access to common spaces, in both urban and rural areas, should be distributed in a way that makes it "not a monopoly of the motorised class alone." Article 39(b) of the Constitution mandates that material resources of a community must be distributed so as to sub-serve the common good. Authorities must consider the common good of both pedestrians and motor vehicle owners when designing a material resource like land to build roadways. A wide, well-demarcated, and uninterrupted footpath could, the court said, "change the beauty of and equitable access to our cities and towns." 

Have the 'Duty-Bearers' Neglected Their Duty to Protect Footpaths? 

• The court noted that laws like the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, paid homage to movement by wheels, and in doing so, even undermined the precious rights of walkers. Justice Narasimha characterised the tendency to subjugate safe and comfortable footpaths to motor transport as a civilisational problem. 
• The primary duty-bearers responsible for effectively managing footpaths are urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities, and panchayats. Footpaths are held in trust by these bodies for the public's benefit — they are the material resources of the community. 

Is There a Need for a Statutory Law and Regulator? 

• The judgment was not satisfied by merely declaring the right to walk safely on a wide and clearly demarcated footpath as a basic right. The court recommended to the government to implement this fundamental right through a statutory law and, moreover, to establish a regulator to hear aggrieved pedestrians. 
• The court recalled the positive role played by Parliament and State legislatures in the past in enabling the effective exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights on the ground. It also noted that modern statutes have shaped a new framework of institutional governance by creating regulatory bodies that institutionalise continuity through perpetual succession and seal, embed expertise through specialisation, promote diversity through their composition, and ensure integrity through mechanisms of accountability. 
• One example the court drew upon was the Right to Education Act, which declared the fundamental right to free and compulsory elementary education under Article 21A in Sections 3 to 5 and recognised the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights as the regulator. 
• Justice Narasimha said a similar Act and a regulatory body must be devised by the legislature to protect the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths. Such an Act must also establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this right. The apex court directed its Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Central Ministries and the Law Commission of India to reflect on the compelling necessity for initiating the necessary legal framework. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's judgment marks a significant jurisprudential shift — from treating footpaths as road-safety infrastructure to recognising them as fundamental civilisational resources tied to the constitutional right to walk. By invoking the tragedy of the commons, Article 39(b), and the model of the Right to Education Act, the court has mapped a clear legislative path forward. The ball now lies in Parliament's court to translate this judicial vision into a statutory framework that places the pedestrian, for once, ahead of the wheel.