Maniyar Iliyaz: Supreme Court recognises footpath right; restores compensation

Ratio / rule laid down

The right to walk is integral to the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and 21, and includes a right to demarcated, maintained footpaths with priority over motorised movement. Its violation may support constitutional or legal restitution and compensation independently of remedies under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Why this matters for lawyers

• A claimant may plead the constitutional right to walk and seek restitution or compensation against the relevant urban development authority, municipal corporation, municipality or panchayat where a road exists without safe, demarcated pedestrian infrastructure.
• Such relief is independent of a Motor Vehicles Act claim; the judgment identifies Sections 38-40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as a possible route for enforcing public duties.
• In fatal claims involving children, advocates should place the Karuna Parmar method before the Tribunal: minimum-wage-based income, 40% future prospects, 50% deduction and multiplier 18, where factually applicable.
• The judgment also supplies a constitutional basis for seeking effective footpath planning, construction, maintenance and protection, while the Court considers a future statutory framework and regulator.

Facts

Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. arose from the death of the appellants’ five-year-old son. The father was walking with the child towards his neighbourhood school at about 9 a.m. when a tanker approaching from behind struck him; the judgment records that there was neither a footpath nor a pedestrian crossing.

The father claimed Rs. 25,00,000/-. By award dated 30.05.2016, the MACT granted Rs. 7,82,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realisation. The High Court dismissed the father’s appeal and allowed the insurer’s appeal, reducing the award to Rs. 4,70,000/-.

Issues

• Whether the right to walk, and specifically to walk on a demarcated footpath alongside a motorised road, is protected as a fundamental right under Part III.
• Whether the absence of pedestrian infrastructure gives rise to enforceable duties and remedies against public authorities, independently of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• Whether the High Court correctly reduced the MACT award, and what compensation methodology should govern the deceased child’s claim.

Court's Reasoning

The Court rejected the assumption that Article 19(1)(d)’s freedom of movement is principally a freedom to move on wheels. It treated walking as the primary form of movement and held that the right necessarily extends to access to safe, comfortable and well-demarcated footpaths. Walking also implicates expression, assembly and association under Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c), while remaining integral to life under Article 21. Accordingly, pedestrian movement on a demarcated footpath has priority over movement by motorised vehicles.

The Court distinguished the statutory focus of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: its architecture concerns licensing, registration, transport control, traffic, insurance and claims, with pedestrian protection remaining incidental. The Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 impose precautions on drivers but do not recognise the fundamental footpath right or establish a regulatory structure for it. The correlative public duty therefore rests on urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats: where a road exists, they must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard pedestrian infrastructure.

On remedy, the Court held that constitutional relief and Sections 38-40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 may support restitution against public duty-bearers, distinct from an MACT claim. It directed circulation of the judgment to the concerned Union Ministries and the Law Commission to consider legislation declaring the right, identifying duty-bearers, providing quick remedies and establishing a full-time regulator. On compensation, applying the approach in Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, it assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 10,11,528/-, added Rs. 96,800/- for consortium, Rs. 18,150/- for estate and Rs. 18,150/- for funeral expenses, totalling Rs. 11,44,628/-.

Key Takeaways

• Right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III, encompassing the right to demarcated footpaths.
• Footpaths are not merely municipal conveniences: their provision and maintenance are correlative public duties where roads exist.
• Constitutional or Specific Relief Act remedies may be pursued independently of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
• The right to walk on footpaths is declared primary and superior to motorised movement.
• The High Court’s reduction was set aside in substance; compensation was recalculated at Rs. 11,44,628/-.

Important Observations

The Court directed the Registry to re-number the matter as an Article 32 petition, change the cause title to Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath, and implead the Government of India through the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development and Road Transport and Highways. The disposal of the original appeals therefore opens a continuing constitutional examination of pedestrian infrastructure and regulation.

What Remains Unresolved

The judgment declares the right and identifies duty-bearers but does not prescribe uniform design, accessibility, maintenance or enforcement standards for every road. It also leaves the precise statutory regulator, institutional architecture and remedial procedure to legislative and further constitutional consideration.

Precedents discussed

• Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha2025 INSC 1244Relied upon

  method for assessing compensation for the death of a minor

• S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of IndiaW.P. (C) No. 295/2012Referred to

  pedestrian-safety directions and continuing monitoring

• Lucknow Public School, Eldico v. State of Uttar Pradesh2026 INSC 422Referred to

  illustration of statutory implementation of a fundamental right

Source judgment: Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. · Bench: Pamidighantam Narasimha, Atul S Chandurkar