Right to Walk on Footpath Is a Fundamental Right — SC Holds Public Authorities Have an Enforceable Duty

Walking to work, to school, to the market. For millions of Indians, this is a daily necessity — and for many, the absence of safe footpaths, the encroachment of footpaths by vendors or parked vehicles, and the complete absence of pedestrian infrastructure makes this simple act dangerous. In a significant August 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to walk on public footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court went further. It held that public authorities — municipal corporations, state governments, urban local bodies — have an enforceable legal duty to provide and maintain pedestrian infrastructure. This is not a discretionary welfare measure. It is a constitutional obligation.

1. Article 21 and the Right to Life: A Living Provision

Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. On its face, this seems narrow. But the Supreme Court of India has, over five decades, expanded Article 21 far beyond its text.

The expansion began with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court held that the "procedure established by law" must be fair, just, and reasonable — not any arbitrary procedure. From there, the Court began reading specific rights into Article 21.

In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with basic human dignity — not merely to exist. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, since without the means to live, life itself is endangered.

Environmental rights entered Article 21 through M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996) — the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. The right to health, the right to education (Mohini Jain, 1992), the right to speedy trial, the right to legal aid — all have been read into Article 21 through this expansive judicial interpretation.

2. The Right to Pedestrian Safety as a Fundamental Right

The August 2026 Supreme Court ruling is the latest in this long tradition of expanding Article 21. The Court held that the right to walk safely on public footpaths is part of the right to life under Article 21.

The reasoning is straightforward: walking is a fundamental human activity. The ability to move from one place to another is inseparable from the exercise of other fundamental rights — the right to work, to access education, to participate in public life. When footpaths are encroached upon, broken, or absent altogether, this ability is denied — particularly to the elderly, the differently abled, children, and those who cannot afford vehicles.

The Court held that the right to pedestrian safety is not merely an aspiration or a policy preference. It is a constitutional entitlement that public authorities must honour.

3. The Enforceable Duty on Public Authorities

The more significant holding is the Court's statement that public authorities have an enforceable duty to provide safe pedestrian infrastructure. This means:

Municipal corporations must ensure footpaths along public roads. Urban local bodies must prevent encroachment of footpaths — whether by hawkers, vehicles, construction, or utility installations. State governments must allocate resources for pedestrian infrastructure as part of their constitutional obligation to protect the right to life. Failure to do so is not merely poor governance. It is a constitutional default that courts can remedy.

This ruling makes the absence of footpaths — or their encroachment — a matter on which writ petitions under Article 226 (High Court) or Article 32 (Supreme Court) can be filed directly. Citizens and NGOs can now approach courts to compel local bodies to create and protect pedestrian infrastructure.

Read Also: SC Bail Directions in Murder Cases: Written Reasons 

4. The Connection to Municipal Council Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980)

This 2026 ruling sits in the same tradition as the Ratlam Municipal Council case of 1980. In that case (discussed earlier in this series), Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer held that courts can compel municipalities to perform their statutory duties related to public health and sanitation — and that lack of funds is no excuse.

The 2026 footpath ruling extends the same logic: just as residents have a right to clean drains and sanitation, they have a right to safe walking paths. Public bodies cannot hide behind budgetary constraints when their inaction directly threatens citizens' fundamental rights.

5. Exam Significance for Judiciary Aspirants

Constitutional law questions on Article 21 are standard in Civil Judge and PCS J exams. The expansion of Article 21 is a perennial mains topic — typically framed as "Trace the judicial expansion of Article 21 through landmark cases."

The 2026 footpath ruling adds a new dimension: the right to pedestrian safety. Include it after the standard cases (Maneka Gandhi, Francis Coralie, Olga Tellis, M.C. Mehta) as the most recent development.

For PIL-related questions, this case establishes that pedestrian infrastructure is a justiciable issue — you can file a PIL to compel a municipality to fix footpaths.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What did the Supreme Court hold on footpath rights in August 2026?

The Supreme Court held that the right to walk safely on public footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 21, and that public authorities have an enforceable constitutional duty to provide and protect pedestrian infrastructure.

Q2. Which article of the Constitution was invoked?

Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty.

Q3. How has Article 21 been expanded over time?

From bare physical existence (1950s-60s), through the right to live with dignity (Francis Coralie, 1981), right to livelihood (Olga Tellis, 1985), right to a clean environment (M.C. Mehta, 1996), right to education (Mohini Jain, 1992), and now the right to safe pedestrian access (2026).

Q4. Can a citizen file a PIL demanding the construction of footpaths?

Yes. This 2026 ruling makes pedestrian infrastructure a justiciable constitutional issue. A writ petition or PIL under Article 226 or Article 32 can seek directions to public authorities to construct or restore footpaths.

Q5. Does Article 21 cover only physical safety?

No. Article 21 has been expanded to cover dignity, livelihood, environment, health, education, legal aid, speedy trial, and now pedestrian safety. It is one of the most expansively interpreted provisions in the Constitution.

Q6. What obligation does this ruling place on municipal corporations?

Municipal corporations must provide and maintain safe footpaths, prevent encroachment, and allocate resources for pedestrian infrastructure. Failure to do so is a constitutional default.

Q7. What is the connection between Ratlam v. Vardhichand and this 2026 ruling?

Both cases hold that public bodies have enforceable duties to provide basic infrastructure related to citizens' constitutional rights. Ratlam covered sanitation; the 2026 footpath case covers pedestrian safety. The judicial philosophy is identical.

Q8. Which year was Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India decided?

1978. This is the case that first held that Article 21 requires procedures to be fair, just, and reasonable — opening the door to the expansion of Article 21 that followed.

Q9. Is the right to pedestrian safety different from the right to movement under Article 19(1)(d)?

Yes. Article 19(1)(d) guarantees the right to move freely throughout India. The footpath ruling is different — it is about the physical infrastructure that enables safe movement within a locality, framed as a right to life under Article 21.

Q10. Why is this ruling important for APO aspirants?

APO exams test on administrative law, civil rights, and constitutional obligations of public authorities. This ruling on the enforceable duty of public bodies to provide pedestrian infrastructure is directly relevant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling on the right to walk on footpaths continues a 50-year tradition of expanding Article 21 to protect the daily realities of Indian citizens' lives. It adds pedestrian safety to the growing list of fundamental rights — and places a clear, enforceable duty on every public authority responsible for urban infrastructure.

For judiciary aspirants studying constitutional law for Civil Judge and PCS J exams, this case belongs alongside Maneka Gandhi, Olga Tellis, and M.C. Mehta in the Article 21 expansion timeline.

Aashayein Judiciary, under Nitesh Sir's mentorship, keeps your constitutional law preparation current with every significant Supreme Court ruling. Join our Online Judiciary Coaching today and prepare with complete, updated Judiciary Notes.