Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz vs P. Ayyappan

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 647
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4665-4666/2025

MANIYAR ILIYAZ @ SHAIK RIYAZ & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
P. AYYAPPAN & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

1. Like any young father, the appellant lovingly readied his five-year-
old son and left home at 9 am to drop him at the neighbourhood school.
Who could have ever imagined that it would be the last walk with his son?
As father and son were walking towards the school, a tanker came from
behind and struck the boy, crushing his waist and lower body. He
succumbed to the injuries.
2. Take it for granted, there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian
crossing.
3. Accidents like this continue to occur, perhaps they are inevitable till
we restructure our rights regime as regards access to roads and recognise
their correlative duties. Till then, we will continue to cope with these
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.06.19
12:12:09 IST
Reason:
tragedies by routinely transforming them into FIRs and Motor Accidents
Claims. We are not referring to road safety, for this Court is deeply
Page 1 of 13

concerned about it and is, in fact, monitoring the implementation of safety
1
guidelines . The issue is something more fundamental, and it is in
recognition of the simplest of the simple human activity- “Walking”. While
the right to walk is inextricably connected to life, our Constitution
recognises and guarantees it as a fundamental right – “All citizens shall
2
have the right…to move freely throughout the territory of India” .
4. It is necessary, rather compelling, that we first disabuse our minds
of associating this “right to move” only with movement on wheels. We
have started walking long before wheels were put on our path. 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. The citizen’s fundamental right to walk on a
demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by
motorised vehicles.
5. It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognizing 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. It could also be elitism to start
with, for machines with wheels were only for the rich, but as economies

1
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 295/2012; this Court also passed certain guidelines
in In Re: Phalodi Accident, 2026 INSC 388 as well.
2
Article 19(1)(d).
Page 2 of 13

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.
6. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 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 civilizational problem.
7. It is not at all difficult to imagine how a wide, well-demarcated and
uninterrupted footpath can change the beauty of and equitable access to
our cities and towns - this could truly be transformative of our urban and
rural living. In reality, how much does it take to create a well-demarcated
footpath wherever a road exists? All that the fundamental right to walk
demands is a comfortable space for an easy and carefree walk. Should
this not be the minimum of the minimum duty that a municipal authority
owes to the citizens?
Page 3 of 13

8. Walking has always triggered the Indian imagination- it has deep
3 4 5 6 7
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). Unfortunately,
we have failed to recognize these aspects to such an extent that the
phrase “pedestrian” has acquired pejorative shades. We labour to
emphasize 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 motorized
class alone.


3
For instance, the Nagar Sankirtan, a traditional neighbourhood procession where communities walk
through streets singing devotional folk songs to reclaim public spaces as sites of shared cultural and
musical heritage.
4
For instance, the Pandharpur Wari, an 800-year-old pilgrimage that temporarily dissolves caste
hierarchies as thousands walk together in egalitarian devotion.
5
For instance, the Kanwar Yatra, an annual monsoon trek where devotees of Lord Shiva carry sacred
Ganges water over hundreds of miles as an act of physical penance.
6
For instance, the Dandi March, when Mahatma Gandhi’s 241-mile padayatra transformed a simple
act of walking into a powerful tool of anti-colonial resistance.
7
For instance, the Bhoodan Movement, led by Vinoba Bhave, who walked over 70,000 km to persuade
landowners to voluntarily redistribute land to the landless.
Page 4 of 13

9. Though late in the day, we must affirm and secure to our citizens
this fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths. Clear articulation
and declaration of such a right is necessary to recognise the correlative
duty to provision and maintain footpaths. The duty bearers are the Urban
Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and
even Panchayats.
10. If a road exists, there must then be a duty to ensure that a footpath
is demarcated and maintained for the walkers. This is an enforceable duty.
The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall override the
privilege of a motorised vehicle.
11. Part III of our Constitution guaranteeing fundamental rights has a
unique relationship with Parliament and State Legislatures. While it
injuncts and limits the legislature from making “laws that are inconsistent
8
with or in derogation of fundamental rights” , it also envisages a positive
role for the legislature to effectuate the exercise and enjoyment of the
fundamental rights. Following this, Parliament and State Legislatures
have enacted laws effectuating each of the fundamental rights. Modern
legislatures have devised and adopted a statutory regime that not only
reiterates the concerned fundamental right but also recognises the duty
bearers and provisions legal remedies. Apart from the declaration,
recognition, and provision of the right, duty, and remedy, modern statutes

8
Article 13.
Page 5 of 13

have been entrenching a new character of institutional governance by
establishing regulatory bodies. These bodies institutionalise memory
through perpetual seal and succession, institutionalise expertise by
incorporating specialisation, institutionalise diversity through composition
and also institutionalise integrity through accountability. For example, the
2009 enactment, the Right to Education Act, declares the fundamental
right to free and compulsory elementary education under Article 21 A in
9
Sections 3-5. The Act recognises the duty bearers as the appropriate
government, the local authority, the neighbourhood schools, parents, and
10
the primary school teachers. The remedies are provided under Section
11
32, and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights is
recognised as the regulator.
12. Similarly, the National Food Security Act, 2013, recognises the
12
basic human sustenance under Article 21 in Sections 3-7. The Act
obligates the Central, State Governments, and the local authorities to
13
procure, allocate, and deliver subsidised foodgrains. Remedies are
provided under Chapter VII, and the Food Commissions alongside District
Grievance Redressal Officers (DGROs), are recognised as the
14
regulators. On similar lines, the Right to Information Act, 2009, declares

9
Chapter II, The Right of Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
10
Lucknow Public School, Eldico v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 422.
11
Section 31, RTE Act, 2009.
12
Chapter II (Sections 3–7), The National Food Security Act, 2013.
13
Sections 24, 25 and 26, The National Food Security Act, 2013.
14
Section 14 and Section 15, The National Food Security Act, 2013.
Page 6 of 13

the right to information under Sections 3 and 4, recognises the duty
bearers as the Public Authorities, the Heads of Departments, and the
15
designated Public Information Officers (PIOs). The remedies against
non-disclosure or delay are provided under Section 19, and the Central
16
and State Information Commissions are recognised as the regulators.
13. 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. We
direct the Registry to send a copy of our 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. A copy may also be sent to the Law
Commission for examining the statutory framework for protecting the right,
identifying the duty bearers and provisioning remedies. Constitutional
Courts also have a duty to declare with clarity the existence of this
fundamental right and ensure that the existing civil and the constitutional
remedies are accessible and effective.

15
Section 5, The Right to Information Act, 2005.
16
Section 12 and Section 15, The Right to Information Act, 2005.
Page 7 of 13

14. We have clarified at the very outset that the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, is not a legislation for protecting the right to walk on the footpath. Its
predecessor, the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, was enacted with the primary
concern of the State to standardise commercial transport and to create a
revenue-generating system through registration, licensing, and permits.
Its successor the present 1988 Act, continues the same tradition of laying
17
down the entire infrastructure for licensing of drivers of motor vehicles ,
18
licensing of conductors of stage carriages , registration of motor
19 20
vehicles , control of transport vehicles , special provisions relating to
21
state transport undertakings , construction, equipment and maintenance
22 23 24
of motor vehicles , control of traffic , insurance of motor vehicles ,
25
claims tribunals and such other provisions. The Motor Vehicles Act is
built upon “vehicle” as the subject of the legislation, while “human”
interests are incidental, which a motor vehicle must avoid violating – that’s
all, and no further. In its discourse, the right of a pedestrian is incidental;
the mainstay of this legislation is the Motor Vehicle. In the year 2017, the
Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways notified i.e., on 23.06.2017, the
Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, which defines Road User to

17
Chapter II, Sections 3 to 28.
18
Chapter III, Sections 29 to 38.
19
Chapter IV, Sections 39 to 65.
20
Chapter V, Sections 66 to 96.
21
Chapter VI, Sections 97 to 108
22
Chapter VII, Sections 109-111.
23
Chapter VIII, Sections 112 to 138.
24
Chapter XI, Sections 145 to 164.
25
Chapter XII, Sections 165 to 176.
Page 8 of 13

include a person driving or travelling on the road in a vehicle or otherwise
and a pedestrian (Regulation 2(o)). Regulation 3 contemplates a duty of
a vehicle towards road users and general public. Regulation 5 imposes a
duty on drivers to take special care and precautions to ensure safety of
vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children etc.
Regulation 9 speaks about precautions to be taken at intersections where
there is inter alia a pedestrian crossing. These regulations are nothing
more than guiding principles for a motor vehicle driver, they neither
recognise the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths nor
prioritise the right to footpath over a motorised road. Unfortunately, as of
today, even under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Parliament has not
put in place a full time regulatory body for motor transport. The Transport
Authorities contemplated under Chapter V are not regulatory bodies. This
Court has long been struggling to squeeze in pedestrian rights in the
nooks and crannies of the Motor Vehicles Act and the attempt is still
continuing with monitoring the implementation of its directions issued
26
since 2012.
15. It is important to recognise that if the fundamental right to walk on a
demarcated footpath is violated, a citizen is entitled to enforce
restitutionary remedy. This remedy is distinct from that of the claim that a
person may make under the Motor Vehicles Act. The restitutionary

26
Directions issued in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No. 295/2012.
Page 9 of 13

remedy under the Constitution or under Sections 38-40 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 for the enforcement of public duties can be enforced
against the Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations,
Municipalities, or the Panchayats.
16. To enhance and effectuate the fundamental right to walk on
demarcated footpaths, it is necessary to establish a regulatory body.
Working with perpetual seal and succession, such a regulator will develop
and retain institutional memory so that it can act on the basis of the
experience, data, and information it has gathered and
processed. Institutional expertise is critical, and such a regulator will
employ human resources with domain expertise and talent. The regulator
will maintain institutional integrity by taking independent and objective
decisions without governmental or industrial control. These values shall
flow naturally if there is institutional transparency and accountability . It is
in this perspective that we need to effectuate the fundamental right to
walk .
17. Returning to the facts of the present case, the claim petition filed by
the father for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- was considered and
MACT, by its award dated 30.05.2016, granted Rs. 7,82,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation. In an
appeal filed by the appellant as well as the Insurance Company, by the
order impugned before us, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s
Page 10 of 13

appeal and, while allowing the respondent’s appeal, reduced the
compensation to Rs. 4,70,000/-.
18. We are of the opinion that the High Court committed an error in
reducing the compensation granted by the MACT. In a recent decision in
27
Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha , involving a similar factual situation in
which the deceased minor was 6 years old, this Court fixed the child’s
daily income at Rs. 223/- and, by referring to the notification issued under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it prescribed the wages payable to a
skilled worker for the year 2014. Consequently, the monthly income was
calculated at Rs. 6,690/-, and the deceased’s annual income was taken
as Rs. 80,280/- (6,690 × 12). After adding 40% towards future prospects,
the annual income was assessed as Rs. 1,12,392/- (80,280 + 32,112).
Upon deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses, the annual
loss of dependency was determined as Rs. 56,196/-. Applying the
multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency was computed as Rs.
10,11,528/-. Applying the same to the instant case, the compensation is
required to be recalculated as an amount of Rs. 10,11,528/- towards loss
of dependency, an amount of Rs. 96,800/- towards loss of consortium, an
amount of Rs. 18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,150 towards
funeral expenses.

27
2025 INSC 1244.
Page 11 of 13

19. In this view of the matter, the appellant(s) will be entitled to
compensation of Rs. 11,44,628/- and the amount shall be paid within a
period of two months from today.
20. Returning to the discussion and the articulation of the right, the
correlative duty and followed by the constitutional statutory remedies, in
conclusion, we declare as under:
a. 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.
b. 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.
Page 12 of 13

c. 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 Act, 1988.
21. We place on record the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.
Mamidipudi V Mukunda, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae. We
direct the Registry to re-number this case as a petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution by changing the cause title to Re: Fundamental Right to
Walk and Footpath . The Government of India, through the Ministries of
Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development and Road Transport and
Highways, is impleaded as a party in person. We request Mr. K.M. Nataraj,
ASG, to assist the court.
22. The appeal(s) and pending application(s), if any, are disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.

………………………………....J.
[ PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA ]
………………………………....J.
[ ]
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
NEW DELHI;
June 19, 2026.

Page 13 of 13