The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to identify five cities across the country for a pilot project to ensure properly demarcated, well-maintained and encroachment-free footpaths wherever roads exist, taking forward its landmark ruling recognising walking safely on a footpath as a fundamental right.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe also directed the Union government to identify a central authority that could be made responsible for implementing its directions. The court made it clear that the designated body must have adequate funds, manpower, infrastructure and access to the space required to carry out the task rather than merely being assigned responsibility on paper.
Five cities for pilot
During the hearing, the bench asked Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, to identify both the implementing authority and five cities where the court’s directions could initially be tested.
“Which will be that centralised authority, you tell us. The authority should have the funds, staff and infrastructure. Secondly, tell us about five cities where you can have the pilot project,” the bench told Nataraj.
The law officer said he would place the necessary information before the court. The bench subsequently directed the Union government to identify an authority responsible for implementing the requirement of establishing footpaths and said five towns could be selected for a pilot project to provide footpaths wherever roads exist.
The matter will next be heard after three weeks, when the Centre is expected to place its proposals before the bench.
From ruling to implementation
Monday’s directions mark a shift in the proceedings from recognising a pedestrian’s constitutional rights to creating an administrative mechanism capable of enforcing them. The Supreme Court had on June 19 delivered a significant judgment declaring that the right to walk is a fundamental right and that it includes the right to properly demarcated footpaths.
The court subsequently expanded the issue beyond the individual case in which the ruling arose and initiated separate proceedings to examine pedestrian infrastructure across the country. Its latest directions are intended to create a practical model that could eventually be replicated more widely.
During an earlier hearing on August 24, the court had observed that the existence of footpaths was an integral part of human life. It directed all states and Union Territories to respond on the implementation of its directions concerning properly demarcated and encroachment-free pedestrian spaces.
Pedestrians get priority
In its June 19 judgment, the Supreme Court placed pedestrian rights ahead of the convenience of motorised traffic while explaining the constitutional foundation of the right to walk.
“The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution,” the court had held. It linked the right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) with other freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The court held that the fundamental right to walk necessarily included the right to demarcated footpaths. Significantly, it said these rights were “primary” and must receive priority over the movement of motorised vehicles.
The judgment effectively rejected an approach to urban road planning in which pedestrian infrastructure is treated as an optional addition after space has been allocated to vehicles.
Road means footpath
The Supreme Court also established a direct relationship between construction of a road and the obligation to provide pedestrian infrastructure. It held that the recognition of a fundamental right to walk creates a corresponding duty on public authorities.
“If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers,” the court had ruled.
The principle has potentially wide implications for cities where footpaths are absent, discontinuous, damaged or occupied by vehicles, commercial establishments, construction material and other encroachments. It also places the focus on maintaining pedestrian spaces after they are constructed rather than merely creating them as part of road projects.
Tragedy triggered case
The wider proceedings originated from a motor accident compensation case involving the death of a five-year-old boy. The child died while his father was taking him to school, prompting the court to examine the broader question of pedestrian safety and the lack of adequate walking infrastructure.
Instead of limiting its decision to compensation arising from the accident, the bench examined the structural conditions that expose pedestrians to traffic risks. This eventually resulted in the declaration of the fundamental right to walk and the initiation of proceedings aimed at ensuring that roads across the country have safe pedestrian spaces.
The Supreme Court Registry was directed to register a separate case titled In Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath. The Centre was impleaded through the ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, reflecting the fact that responsibility for roads and pedestrian infrastructure is spread across multiple levels and departments.
Encroachments under lens
Providing footpaths alone will not satisfy the court’s directions. The emphasis throughout the proceedings has been on properly demarcated, accessible and encroachment-free spaces that pedestrians can actually use.
In many cities, pedestrians are forced onto carriageways because pavements are either unavailable or unusable. Encroachments, parked vehicles, utility infrastructure, construction activity and poor maintenance frequently interrupt walking routes, increasing the risk of accidents, particularly for children, senior citizens and persons with disabilities.
The proposed pilot project is expected to test how different agencies can coordinate to address these problems comprehensively. The court’s insistence on identifying an authority with its own resources is also aimed at avoiding fragmented responsibility between civic bodies, road-owning agencies and other government departments.
National model possible
The five cities have not yet been selected, and the Supreme Court has not prescribed the criteria the Centre must use while choosing them. The next hearing is expected to provide greater clarity on the proposed locations and the agency that will lead implementation.
If the pilot succeeds, its framework could provide a model for wider implementation across states and Union Territories. The case could consequently influence not only the construction of new roads but also the redesign of existing urban infrastructure.
By treating safe pedestrian movement as a constitutional entitlement rather than simply a matter of municipal planning, the Supreme Court has placed a corresponding obligation on public authorities. The five-city pilot will now be the first major test of how that principle can be translated from a judicial declaration into usable, continuous and safe walking space on the ground.