Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath

 The "Right to Walk": A Landmark Constitutional Victory for Every Citizen

In a historic and path-breaking judgment delivered on June 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of India (Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors.) declared that the Right to Walk is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India.

For decades, our roads and cities have been designed almost exclusively for motor vehicles, leaving pedestrians vulnerable, ignored, and pushed to the edges. This judgment fundamentally changes the legal landscape, placing the safety and dignity of the common man on foot above the "elitism of wheels."

What Did the Supreme Court Declare?

 A Fundamental Right: The Court explicitly ruled that the Right to Walk is protected under Article 19(1)(d) (Freedom of Movement) and  Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

 Priority Over Vehicles:

Pedestrians have the first right to safe passage. The right to a clean, unobstructed, and well-demarcated footpath is now legally guaranteed.

 Absolute Duty of Local Bodies: It is the mandatory legal obligation of municipal corporations, municipalities, development authorities, and gram panchayats to build, maintain, and protect footpaths from encroachments.

Common Grievances: 

What Constitutes a Violation?

As a citizen, your fundamental right is violated if your local area suffers from:

 1. Encroachments: Permanent or temporary structures, unauthorized kiosks, or street vendors blocking the sidewalk.

 2. Illegal Parking: Cars, bikes, or commercial vehicles parked on footpaths, forcing pedestrians to walk on the main road.

 3. Broken Infrastructure: Damaged, open, or poorly maintained footpaths that pose a severe risk to senior citizens, children, and persons with disabilities.

 4. Missing Footpaths: Roads constructed without any designated or safe walking space for pedestrians.

## How Can a Common Citizen Take Action?

The Supreme Court has empowered citizens with a Restitutionary Remedy. This means if the authorities fail in their duties, you have the legal right to demand action and accountability.

Step 1: Submit a Written Application

You can write a formal complaint to your Municipal Commissioner, Executive Officer, District Collector, or Police Commissioner.

 Tip: Always mention the Supreme Court judgment (Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026) in your application.

 Tip:Attach photographs or maps of the specific road or colony showing the encroachment or damage.

Step 2: Escalation to the High Court

If the local authorities fail to take action within a reasonable timeframe, you do not have to sit quietly.

 Citizens can file a Writ Petition under Article 226 in their respective State High Court.

 Because the Supreme Court has set the precedent, High Courts can order immediate clearings, mandate infrastructure repairs, and even hold officials in  Contempt of Court or order them to pay compensation if they defy these directions.

Why This Matters to You

Every year, thousands of pedestrians lose their lives in tragic, preventable road accidents simply because they were forced to walk on main roads due to missing or blocked footpaths.

This judgment is not just a piece of paper; it is a powerful legal shield. By raising awareness, demanding unobstructed sidewalks, and holding local administrations accountable, we can make our neighborhoods, markets, and cities safer for our children, our elderly, and ourselves.

Public space belongs to the public. Assert your Right to Walk safely.

माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा 19 जून 2026 को दिया गया यह निर्णय (Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. - 2026 INSC 647) भारतीय कानून और शहरी नियोजन (Urban Planning) के इतिहास में एक मील का पत्थर है।

इस ऐतिहासिक फैसले के मुख्य बिंदु और कोर्ट का वास्तविक आदेश इस प्रकार है:

1. मामले की शुरुआत (एक दुखद दुर्घटना)

यह मामला मूल रूप से एक मोटर दुर्घटना मुआवजे का था। एक 5 वर्षीय बच्चा अपने पिता के साथ सुबह स्कूलजा रहा था। जिस सड़क पर वे चल रहे थे, वहाँ न तो कोई फुटपाथ था और न ही कोई पेडेस्ट्रियन क्रॉसिंग (पैदलपार पथ)। पीछे से आ रहे एक पानी के टैंकर ने बच्चे को कुचल दिया, जिससे उसकी मृत्यु हो गई।

2. मुआवजा राशि में वृद्धि

 ट्रिब्यूनल (MACT):पीड़ित परिवार को ₹7,82,000 का मुआवजा दिया था।

 हाईकोर्ट: अपील में हाईकोर्ट ने इस राशि को घटाकर केवल ₹4,70,000 कर दिया।

 सुप्रीम कोर्ट का आदेश: जस्टिस पी.एस. नरसिम्हा और जस्टिस ए.एस. चंदूरकर की पीठ ने हाईकोर्ट की इसकटौती को गलत ठहराया और मुआवजे की राशि को बढ़ाकर ₹11,44,628 करने का आदेश दिया।

3. "पैदल चलने" को मौलिक अधिकार घोषित करना

सिर्फ मुआवजे तक सीमित न रहकर, कोर्ट ने इस बात को गंभीरता से रेखांकित किया कि देश में पैदल चलने वालोंकी सुरक्षा की स्थिति दयनीय है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट घोषणा की:

 संवैधानिक संरक्षण: पैदल चलने का अधिकार (Right to Walk) भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19(1)(d) (देशमें स्वतंत्र रूप से आवागमन का अधिकार) और अनुच्छेद 21 (जीवन और व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार) काअभिन्न हिस्सा है।

 वाहनों पर प्राथमिकता: नागरिकों का फुटपाथ पर चलने का यह मौलिक अधिकार प्राथमिक है और इसे सड़कोंपर चलने वाले मोटर वाहनों (गाड़ियों) से ऊपर (Priority) रखा जाएगा। कोर्ट ने इसे दशकों से चले आ रहे"पहियों के अभिजात्य वर्ग" (Elitism of Wheels) पर आम इंसान की जीत बताया।

4. स्थानीय निकायों की जवाबदेही (Absolute Duty)

अदालत ने साफ कहा कि जहाँ भी कोई सार्वजनिक सड़क बनाई जाती है, वहाँ एक सुरक्षित और स्पष्ट रूप सेचिन्हित (demarcated) फुटपाथ बनाना प्रशासन की कानूनी जिम्मेदारी है। यह अनिवार्य कर्तव्य निम्नलिखितपर लागू होता है:

 नगर निगम (Municipal Corporations) और नगरपालिकाएँ

 विकास प्राधिकरण (Urban Development Authorities)

 ग्राम पंचायतें और स्थानीय निकाय

5. नागरिकों के लिए नया कानूनी उपाय (Restitutionary Remedy)

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस निर्णय में एक बहुत बड़ी व्यवस्था दी है:

यदि प्रशासन फुटपाथ बनाने, उसका रखरखाव करने या उसे अतिक्रमण मुक्त रखने में विफल रहता है, तो आमनागरिक केवल मोटर वाहन अधिनियम के तहत नहीं, बल्कि  संविधान के तहत सीधे मुआवजा या कार्रवाई(Restitutionary Remedy) की मांग कर सकते हैं। इसके लिए विशिष्ट अनुतोष अधिनियम, 1963 (Specific Relief Act) की धाराओं का उपयोग कर स्थानीय निकायों के खिलाफ स्वतंत्र रूप से कानूनी कदमउठाया जा सकता है।

6. भविष्य के लिए बड़ा कदम (Ongoing Monitoring)

इस मुद्दे के व्यापक जनहित को देखते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस व्यक्तिगत केस को एक बड़ी जनहित याचिका (Suo Motu Case) में बदल दिया है, जिसका नया नाम "Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath" (अनुच्छेद 32 के तहत) रखा गया है।

कोर्ट ने केंद्रीय शहरी विकास मंत्रालय, ग्रामीण विकास मंत्रालय और विधि आयोग (Law Commission) कोइसकी प्रतियाँ भेजी हैं ताकि देश में पैदल चलने वालों के अधिकारों की रक्षा के लिए एक कठोर कानून और एकस्वतंत्र रेगुलेटर (Pedestrian Safety Regulator)का गठन किया जा सके।

निष्कर्ष:

इस फैसले के बाद अब कोई भी नगर निकाय या प्रशासनिक अधिकारी फुटपाथों के अतिक्रमण या खस्ताहालीकी शिकायत को "बजट की कमी" या "सामान्य बात" कहकर खारिज नहीं कर सकता। ऐसा करना सीधे तौर परदेश के नागरिकों के मौलिक अधिकार और सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेश का उल्लंघन (Contempt of Court) मानाजाएगा।