"Supreme Court directs government to guarantee encroachment-free pedestrian footpaths"
Article 21
Constitutional provision guaranteeing right to life and personal liberty, expansively interpreted by courts.
Judicialization of governance
Courts stepping in to enforce rights where legislative/executive action has failed.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over decades, the Supreme Court has progressively expanded this provision far beyond its literal text. Beginning with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which held that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, the Court has read into Article 21 rights to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985), to a clean environment, to health, to shelter, and to education. This expansive jurisprudence reflects the Court's view that the right to life must be meaningful — not merely the absence of physical death, but the presence of conditions that make dignified life possible.
Urban governance in India is constitutionally anchored in the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which created a third tier of government through Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). The Twelfth Schedule lists 18 functions that may be devolved to municipalities, including urban planning, regulation of land use, and public health. In practice, however, ULBs remain fiscally constrained and administratively subordinate to state governments, which retain control over key urban land and infrastructure decisions. The National Urban Transport Policy (NUTP), 2006 was the first national policy to explicitly prioritise pedestrians and non-motorised transport over private vehicles, but implementation has been largely aspirational. Schemes such as AMRUT and the Smart Cities Mission include walkability provisions, yet pedestrian infrastructure has consistently received the lowest share of urban investment budgets.
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is a related legal instrument that attempted to balance pedestrian access with the livelihood rights of street vendors — a tension that the present judgment brings back into sharp focus, since encroachment enforcement has historically been class-asymmetric in Indian cities.
The Supreme Court's recognition of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 21 represents a significant doctrinal development. The Court has held that wherever a road exists, there is an enforceable duty on the state to demarcate and maintain a footpath for pedestrians. Crucially, the judgment explicitly inverts the prevailing hierarchy of Indian urban planning: the fundamental right to walk overrides the privilege of motorised vehicle use. This framing — distinguishing a constitutional right from a mere privilege — has important legal and policy consequences.
The judgment arose from a case involving the death of a five-year-old child crushed by a truck while walking to school, illustrating how the absence of safe pedestrian infrastructure is not merely an inconvenience but a life-threatening failure of the state. The Court characterised walking as the "simplest of simple human activities, inextricably connected to life" — language that grounds the right firmly in the core of Article 21's protection of life and dignity. …
Under which Article of the Constitution of India is the 'Right to Privacy' protected?
With reference to the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to walk on footpaths as a fundamental right, consider the following statements:
1.The Court held that this right is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution.
2.The judgment prioritises the right to walk over the privilege of motorised vehicle use.
3.The Court directed that this right can only be enforced against state governments, not the Union government.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly describes the significance of the Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) judgment in the context of Article 21?
The Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution, inserted by the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, relates to which of the following?
Assertion (A): The Supreme Court's direction to ensure encroachment-free footpaths imposes a positive obligation on the state under Article 21.
Reason (R): Article 21, as textually worded, is a negative right that only prohibits the state from depriving persons of life or liberty without procedure established by law.
Which of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account