Factual Background
The litigation arose from a fatal accident where a five-year-old boy was struck and killed by a tanker truck while walking to school with his father. The location of the tragedy lacked any basic pedestrian infrastructure, such as a sidewalk or a designated crossing. While the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal originally granted the family compensation, the High Court later reduced this award during an appeal. The father eventually approached the Supreme Court seeking justice for his son’s death and highlighting the systemic lack of safety for those on foot.
Issue(s)
- Does the Constitution of India recognize a fundamental right to walk on safe, demarcated footpaths under the guarantees of free movement and the right to life?
- Does the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sufficiently protect the rights of pedestrians, or is a new legal and regulatory framework required?
- What is the appropriate legal standard for calculating compensation for the death of a minor in a road accident?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court formally declared that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, specifically as part of the right to move freely and the right to life. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, increasing the compensation for the appellants to Rs. 11,44,628. It further directed the Union Government and the Law Commission to initiate the creation of a statutory framework that recognizes the rights of walkers and establishes a dedicated regulator for pedestrian safety.
Reason for the decision
The Court observed that the right to “move freely throughout the territory of India” under Article 19(1)(d) must include the most basic human activity—walking—which preceded the invention of the wheel. It noted that urban development has historically favored motorized vehicles, often treating pedestrians as a “nuisance” rather than right-holders. The judgment emphasized that walking is not merely physical motion but is deeply tied to the rights of expression, assembly, and association, as well as the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
The Court criticized the Motor Vehicles Act for focusing primarily on the “vehicle” as its subject while treating human safety as merely incidental. Legally, the Court found that if a road is built, there is an enforceable duty for authorities to provide a corresponding footpath. Regarding compensation, the Court held that the High Court erred by not following established precedents for calculating the income and future prospects of deceased minors.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the right to a demarcated footpath must take priority over the movement of motorized vehicles. It established that local authorities, from Municipal Corporations to Panchayats, have a legal obligation to maintain pedestrian infrastructure. To ensure this right is protected, the Court re-titled the proceedings as a petition under Article 32 and impleaded several Union Ministries to oversee the development of new safety laws.
