The Supreme Court on Friday held that the right to walk on secured footpaths is a fundamental right and urged the government to bring a law that declares this right and recognises the duty of municipal authorities and local bodies to build, demarcate, and maintain necessary pedestrian infrastructure.“The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1) (b), Article 19(1) (c) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles,” a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar said.The court said that the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has a correlative duty. “If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers. The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats, who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure, as walking is integral to life,” the bench said.It further added that “the violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation. This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988.”Also Read | NHAI goes AI way: In-house system deployed to flag faults in highway project reports, track road defectsA 5-year-old’s deathThe judgment came in a motor accident claim case related to a five-year-old boy’s death. A man and his son were walking toward his school when a tanker hit the boy from behind, crushing his waist and lower body. The boy succumbed to the injuries.On May 30, 2016, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) granted compensation of Rs 7.82 lakh, with 6 per cent interest per annum. After the insurance company appealed the decision, the high court reduced the compensation to Rs 4.70 lakh.The Supreme Court was of the view that the high court “committed an error in reducing the compensation granted by the MACT” and enhanced it to Rs 11,44,628, and directed that it be paid within two months.Story continues below this adThe Supreme Court also noted in its order that “there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing” on the stretch of road where the accident happened and added that such incidents “continue to occur, perhaps they are inevitable till we restructure our rights regime as regards access to roads and recognise their correlative duties”.Also Read | Supreme Court panel proposes complete ban on using AI to decide verdicts or judge bail criteria‘Right to walk must extend to access to safe footpaths’The court said that “while the right to walk is inextricably connected to life, our Constitution recognises and guarantees it as a fundamental right” in Article 19 (d), which says “All citizens shall have the right…to move freely throughout the territory of India”.Pointing out that man started walking long before taking to wheels, it said, “The primary right of movement under Article 19(1)(d) is the Fundamental Right to Walk, a right that precedes the right to move on wheels and this precious right must extend to guaranteeing access to safe and well demarcated footpath.”“It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognising and securing this ‘right to walk’. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are suitable for motorised vehicles,” the court added.Story continues below this adIt further said, “It could also be elitism to start with, for machines with wheels were only for the rich, but as economies progressed and cheaper motor vehicles were introduced, the entire spectrum of motorised transportation dominated the roads, pushed aside the walkers to the extent that they are treated as a nuisance for the drivers who routinely run over the walkers and their footpaths. This should stop from now on as we declare the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads.”Motor Vehicles Act, an impedimentThe judgment said that the MV Act “is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk. In fact, the Motor Vehicles Act has been an impediment and, in many ways, undermined the precious rights of walkers. The absence of safe and comfortable footpaths to walk on, and even when they exist, their subjugation to motor transport, has been a civilisational problem.”The court said that “a wide, well-demarcated and uninterrupted footpath can change the beauty of and equitable access to our cities and towns” and that “this could truly be transformative of our urban and rural living.”“Walking has always triggered the Indian imagination—it has deep cultural, social, religious, political, and reformative roots. Walking is a struggle for the not-so-fortunate, meditation in motion for many, resistance for others, discovery for the inquisitive, a cohesive strategy for sharp socio-political minds. It certainly did inspire and ignite some of the ideals of the freedom struggle—which we have a duty to cherish Article 51-A of the Constitution. In that sense, walking is not just motion, it certainly embodies expressional, congregational and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b) and Article 19 (1)(c).”Story continues below this adThe bench noted that “unfortunately, we have failed to recognise these aspects to such an extent that the phrase ‘pedestrian’ has acquired pejorative shades” and added that it is emphasising the “freedom to walk subject to reasonable restrictions, only to ensure that access to common spaces—in both urban areas and rural areas is distributed in such a way that it is not a monopoly of the motorised class alone.”Delving into the need for a law on the subject, the court said, “Insofar as the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is concerned, though it is integral to Articles 21 and 19(1) (d), there is no legislation. It is compelling to lay down a statutory framework not only for declaring the right, but also to recognise the duty bearers. The Act must protect, enhance, and provide quick remedies for violations, and also establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this precious right.”Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways, “to reflect on the compelling necessity for initiating the necessary legal framework.” It also directed that a copy be sent to the Law Commission “for examining the statutory framework for protecting the right, identifying the duty bearers and provisioning remedies.”