Article 2: Right of way
Why in news: The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 21, while hearing a compensation case involving a child killed in a road accident.
Key Details
- The Supreme Court held that the right to walk safely on footpaths forms part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
- The judgment arose from a case involving the death of a five-year-old boy struck by a tanker lorry in Karnataka.
- India lacks a national law on pedestrian rights, with responsibilities scattered across municipal and planning laws.
- Most cities suffer from inadequate, encroached, or discontinuous footpaths, undermining pedestrian safety.
- The Court emphasized the need for greater public investment in pedestrian infrastructure, rather than relying solely on compensation after accidents.
Supreme Court Recognises Right to Walk as a Fundamental Right
- The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
- The ruling came while hearing a case seeking enhanced compensation for a five-year-old child killed in a road accident in Karnataka.
- The judgment continues the Court’s broader expansion of Article 21 protections since the 1970s.
Challenges Faced by Pedestrians in Indian Cities
- The Court observed that increasing motorisation has pushed pedestrians to the margins of urban planning.
- Many motorists view pedestrians as a hindrance rather than legitimate road users.
- Most cities lack continuous, safe, and unobstructed footpaths.
- Existing footpaths are often occupied by parking, vendors, utility installations, construction debris, and road-widening projects.
Institutional and Legal Gaps in Pedestrian Safety
- India does not have a dedicated national law on pedestrian rights.
- Responsibility for pedestrian welfare is fragmented across municipal laws, urban planning regulations, and street design guidelines.
- Current policies focus mainly on preventing immediate physical harm rather than ensuring a safe and accessible walking environment.
Lessons from Similar Rights-Based Legislations
- The Street Vendors Act, 2014 aimed to protect vendors’ livelihoods but suffers from weak implementation and continued eviction drives.
- The COTPA Act, 2003 reduced public smoking through consistent awareness campaigns and enforcement, not merely legal remedies.
- Despite Swachh Bharat initiatives, littering persists because implementation gaps remain.
- These examples show that legal recognition alone cannot transform public behaviour.
Way Forward: Infrastructure and Balanced Urban Planning
- The right to walk will remain symbolic unless governments invest in quality pedestrian infrastructure.
- Excessive enforcement could create conflicts with street vendors and informal livelihoods.
- There is a risk of gentrification if pedestrian rights are used to remove informal economic activities from public spaces.
- Success depends on creating a pedestrian-friendly culture, improving infrastructure, and ensuring balanced urban governance.
- Greater public funding for footpaths and walkable streets is essential to make this constitutional right meaningful.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to walk strengthens the scope of Article 21 and highlights the need for pedestrian-centric urban planning. However, legal recognition alone cannot guarantee safer streets. Effective implementation, investment in quality footpaths, balanced accommodation of informal livelihoods, and a shift in public attitudes are necessary to transform this constitutional right into a lived reality.
Descriptive question:
Q. “The recognition of the right to walk as a fundamental right is meaningful only when supported by adequate urban infrastructure.” Examine in the context of Article 21 and urban governance in India. (150 words, 10 marks)