SC asks Centre to ensure pedestrians have safe footpaths

The Supreme Court's recent directive, delivered by a bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha, marks a significant milestone in the evolving jurisprudence of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. By declaring the right to clean, broad, and safe footpaths a fundamental right, the Court has once again expanded the horizons of the 'Right to Life and Personal Liberty,' transforming it from a mere protection against arbitrary state action into a positive entitlement to dignified urban living. This ruling did not emerge in a vacuum; it builds upon decades of judicial interpretation beginning with the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, which established that 'procedure established by law' must be fair, just, and reasonable. Subsequent rulings in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) recognized the right to livelihood as part of Article 21, while Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) extended it to include the right to a wholesome environment. The immediate context of this judgment likely stems from the alarming pedestrian fatality rates in India. According to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways' 'Road Accidents in India - 2022' report, pedestrians accounted for a significant share of road accident deaths, with unsafe infrastructure being a primary contributor. The Court's observation that this right requires 'no big investment' is a pointed critique of governance priorities. It underscores that the issue is not fiscal incapacity but administrative apathy and flawed urban planning that prioritizes motorized transport over human mobility. The key stakeholders here are the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), state urban development departments, municipal corporations, and the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), which sets design standards. The judgment compels these bodies to enforce IRC guidelines — such as the 1.8-meter minimum footpath width — and integrate pedestrian-first designs under missions like the Smart Cities Mission and AMRUT 2.0. The significance for India is profound. Socially, it empowers the most vulnerable — the elderly, children, persons with disabilities, and low-income workers who walk out of necessity — aligning with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan). Economically, walkable cities reduce healthcare burdens from pollution and accidents, boost local commerce, and enhance productivity by reducing commute stress. Politically, it reinforces cooperative federalism, as the Centre must nudge states to amend building bylaws and municipal acts. Globally, it resonates with the UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and the New Urban Agenda adopted at Habitat III (2016). Looking ahead, this directive could trigger a wave of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in High Courts demanding compliance, pushing municipalities to audit footpath networks. It may also influence the drafting of a proposed National Urban Policy. For aspirants, this case is a textbook example of judicial activism filling legislative vacuums, illustrating how the judiciary interprets the Constitution as a living document to address modern challenges of urbanization.