01Facts
The appellants’ five-year-old son was killed by a tanker while walking to school with his father
p. 1The accident occurred on a road lacking both footpaths and pedestrian crossings
p. 1The father filed a claim for ₹25,00,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded ₹7,82,000 with 6% interest
p. 10On appeal, the High Court reduced this compensation to ₹4,70,000
pp. 10-1102Issues
i.1. Whether the "Right to Walk" on demarcated footpaths is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India
pp. 2 / para. 3-4ii.2. Whether the lack of a statutory framework for pedestrian rights necessitates legislative intervention and the establishment of a regulatory body
pp. 6 / para. 11-13iii.3. Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the MACT for the death of a minor
p. 11 / para. 1803Law Applied
The Court primarily relied on Article 19(1)(d) (Right to move freely) and Article 21 (Right to life) of the Constitution of India, interpreting the "Right to Walk" as a primary right preceding movement on wheels
p. 2It referred to Article 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) regarding expressional and associational aspects of walking
p. 4For compensation, the Court applied the precedent of Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha (2025 INSC 1244), which established a formula for assessing the income and future prospects of a deceased minor using the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
p. 11Provisions in the judgment · 7
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 Section 3, 4, 5, 31, 32
National Food Security Act, 2013 Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24, 25, 26
Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 3, 4, 5, 12, 15, 19
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38, 39, 40
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 not specified
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 not specified
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that motor-centric urban planning has "eclipsed" the fundamental human activity of walking, treating pedestrians as a "nuisance" rather than right-holders
pp. 2-3It observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focuses on vehicles, treating human interests as merely incidental
p. 8The Court drew parallels with the Right to Education and Food Security Acts, noting that fundamental rights require statutory frameworks, duty-bearers (Municipalities/Panchayats), and regulators to be effective
pp. 5-7Regarding compensation, the Court found the High Court's reduction erroneous; it applied the Karuna Parmar formula—calculating daily wages for a skilled worker, adding 40% for future prospects, and applying a multiplier of 18—to ensure just restitution for the loss of a child
p. 1105Holding
The Court set aside the High Court's order and enhanced the compensation to ₹11,44,628
p. 12It formally declared the "Right to Walk" on demarcated footpaths as a Fundamental Right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, holding it is primary and has priority over motorized traffic
p. 12The Court directed the Central Government and Law Commission to explore a statutory framework for pedestrian rights
p. 7Registry was directed to re-number the case as an Article 32 petition titled "Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath" for ongoing monitoring
p. 13Original Court PDF
Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik RiyazvsP. Ayyappan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
