Summary
While restoring and enhancing compensation for the death of a five-year-old boy struck by a tanker on a road without a footpath, the Supreme Court declared that the right to walk, including the right to demarcated footpaths, is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. It held that urban bodies and panchayats owe a correlative duty to provide footpaths, enforceable through remedies independent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Compensation was fixed at Rs. 11,44,628.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the death of a five-year-old child.
- Whether the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right, and who bears the correlative duty to provide and maintain footpaths.
- What remedies a citizen has for violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths, and whether they depend on the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Provisions considered
- Article 19(1)(d), Constitution of IndiaThe Court read the right to move freely throughout India as including, primarily, the right to walk, which extends to access to safe, demarcated footpaths and has priority over movement by motorised vehicles. (¶¶ 3, 4, 13, 20)
- Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21, Constitution of IndiaWalking was held to embody expressive, congregational and associational rights and to be integral to life; these Articles were read with Article 19(1)(d) as the source of the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths. (¶¶ 8, 13, 20)
- Scheme of the Act (Chapters II to XII), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Surveying the Act's chapters, the Court observed that it is built around the vehicle, treats pedestrian interests as incidental and does not recognise the right to walk on footpaths; remedies for violation of that right are independent of claims under the Act. (¶¶ 6, 14, 15, 20)
- Regulations 2(o), 3, 5 and 9, Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017Though these regulations include pedestrians among road users and impose duties of care on drivers, the Court held that they are only guiding principles for drivers and neither recognise the right to walk on footpaths nor give it priority. (¶ 14)
- Sections 38 to 40, Specific Relief Act, 1963Identified, along with constitutional remedies, as a source of restitutionary relief for the enforcement of public duties against urban development authorities, municipal bodies and panchayats when the right to footpaths is violated. (¶ 15)
Held
- The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III, integral to the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) read with Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and 21. It includes the right to demarcated footpaths, and these rights are primary and have priority over movement by motorised vehicles. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9, 20)
- The right carries a correlative, enforceable duty: wherever a road exists, footpaths must be demarcated and maintained for walkers. The duty bearers are urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats, who must demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other pedestrian infrastructure. (¶¶ 9, 10, 20)
- The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 are vehicle-centred and do not recognise or prioritise the right to walk on demarcated footpaths. A citizen whose right is violated may invoke constitutional and legal remedies, including under Sections 38 to 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, against the duty bearers for restitution and compensation, independently of any claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. (¶¶ 6, 14, 15, 20)
- As no legislation governs this right, the Court directed that its judgment be sent to the Union Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, and Road Transport and Highways, and to the Law Commission, to consider a statutory framework declaring the right, identifying duty bearers, providing quick remedies and setting up a full-time regulator. (¶¶ 13, 16)
- The High Court erred in reducing the Tribunal's award. Following Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, compensation for the death of the child was recalculated: Rs. 10,11,528 for loss of dependency, Rs. 96,800 for loss of consortium, Rs. 18,150 for loss of estate and Rs. 18,150 for funeral expenses, a total of Rs. 11,44,628. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeals disposed of; compensation fixed at Rs. 11,44,628, payable within two months; the matter is to be re-numbered as an Article 32 petition titled 'Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath', with the Government of India (through three Ministries) impleaded and the ASG requested to assist; no order as to costs.