Right of way: On the right to walk on demarcated footpaths

Published 2026-06-22 · Updated 2026-06-22 · 3 min · 399 words

UPSC CSE Context

Why in News: Supreme Court reaffirmed right to walk on footpaths as fundamental right under Article 21. Syllabus Connection: Polity: Fundamental Rights, Judicial Activism; Governance: Urban Infrastructure, Pedestrian Safety. Exam Relevance: Relevant for questions on right to life, urban governance, street vending, and public policy implementation. ## Core Issue Right to walk on footpaths declared fundamental right; implementation challenges persist. Stakeholders:

• Pedestrians
• Urban local bodies
• Street vendors
• Motorists
• State governments ## Static Knowledge High-Value Background:
• Article 21 has been expansively interpreted to include right to livelihood, clean environment, and now right to walk. Exam Linkage:
• Useful for questions on fundamental rights, judicial interpretation, and urban governance challenges. Concepts in Context:
• Right of way: legal right of a pedestrian to proceed along a footpath without obstruction.
• Restitutionary remedies: court-ordered compensation or restoration to rectify harm. Institutions and Mechanisms:
• Supreme Court of India: expanded Article 21 to include right to walk. ## Dynamic Analysis ### Constitutional/Legal
• Right to walk is now a fundamental right, but its enforcement depends on state action to build and maintain footpaths.
• Court's restitutionary remedy approach may lead to compensation claims but not systemic change. ### Governance
• Pedestrian safety is fragmented across municipal laws, town-planning statutes, and street design guidelines without a national law.
• State often prioritizes road widening over footpath construction, reflecting car-centric urban planning. ### Society
• Rights-based legislation alone insufficient to change public culture; social messaging and enforcement needed.
• Clearing footpaths of vendors may gentrify public spaces and criminalize survival of urban poor. ## Prelims Takeaways
• Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 used social messaging and fines, not restitutionary remedies. ## Mains Value Addition Arguments:
• Right to walk is meaningless without state provision of continuous, unobstructed footpaths.
• Cultural change requires consistent social messaging and enforcement, not just legal declarations.
• Balancing pedestrian right of way with vendors' livelihood rights is a governance challenge. Data Points:
• Supreme Court case involved death of a five-year-old boy hit by a tanker lorry in Karnataka. Counterpoints:
• Legal right alone may not change public culture; example of littering persists despite Swachh Bharat.
• Compensation after tragedy is reactive; proactive infrastructure investment is needed. ## Way Forward
• Enact a national pedestrian safety law to unify standards and allocate funds for footpath infrastructure.
• Integrate pedestrian needs into urban planning, prioritizing footpaths over road widening.
• Launch social campaigns to promote pedestrian respect, similar to anti-tobacco messaging.
• Use court orders to mandate state investment in pedestrian infrastructure, not just compensation.

Primary/reference source: Editorial Analysis