Fundamental Right to Walk on Demarcated Footpaths takes Priority over Motorised Vehicle Movement.

The appellants’ five-year-old son was killed by a tanker while walking to school with his father

The accident occurred on a road lacking both footpaths and pedestrian crossings

The father filed a claim for ₹25,00,000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded ₹7,82,000 with 6% interest

On appeal, the High Court reduced this compensation to ₹4,70,000

1. Whether the "Right to Walk" on demarcated footpaths is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India

2. Whether the lack of a statutory framework for pedestrian rights necessitates legislative intervention and the establishment of a regulatory body

3. Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the MACT for the death of a minor

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

It referred to Article 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) regarding expressional and associational aspects of walking

For 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

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

It observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focuses on vehicles, treating human interests as merely incidental

The 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

Regarding 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

It 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

The Court directed the Central Government and Law Commission to explore a statutory framework for pedestrian rights

Registry was directed to re-number the case as an Article 32 petition titled "Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath" for ongoing monitoring