Published On: August 31, 2026
Authored By: Kanishka Bhadoriya
Govt Kamla Raja Girls PG Autonomous College Gwalior
I. Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 647; Civil Appeal Nos. 4665-4666 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: 19 June 2026
II. Facts
One morning, a father was taking his five-year-old son home from school when a tanker suddenly struck the child from behind, leaving him with severe injuries. There was no pedestrian pathway or footpath at the site of the incident to allow safe crossing of the road. The father subsequently filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), demanding compensation of Rupees 25 lakh. The MACT awarded approximately Rupees 8 lakh, along with 6% interest per annum. Both the insurance company and the father filed cross-appeals before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the father’s appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and instead reduced the award to approximately Rupees 5 lakh. The father then appealed to the Supreme Court.
III. Issues
1. Whether the High Court erred in reducing the compensation awarded by the MACT, and what is the correct method for computing compensation payable to an injured person.
2. Whether, independent of statutory motor accident compensation, citizens possess a substantive constitutional right to walk freely on footpaths, and what remedies and institutional duties follow from such a right.
IV. Arguments
The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the compensation awarded by the MACT had been unjustifiably reduced by the High Court, and that a minor pedestrian who suffers injury is entitled to enhanced compensation with reference to notified minimum wages, future prospects, and the appropriate standard multiplier. The respondent contended that the reduced compensation was justified, asserting that the original award had overestimated national income and the family’s future dependency. The judgment itself did not elaborate on the constitutional validity of the right to walk on a footpath; rather, the Bench appears to have developed this dimension largely on its own initiative, assisted by an amicus curiae appointed to address the systemic pattern of pedestrian-related issues. The case thereby provided an opportunity to address the structural neglect of pedestrians and the right to walk on footpaths in India.
V. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in reducing the compensation amount. Applying the appropriate computational method and comparing it with the earlier award, the Court held that the compensation should be Rupees 12,00,000, factoring in the future prospects multiplier, personal expenses, the accurate amount under the Minimum Wages Act notification, loss of consortium, loss of dependency, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, to be paid within two months.
The Court also addressed the constitutional status of pedestrian movement. It declared that the right to walk on a footpath is a fundamental right located under Part III of the Constitution of India, forming part of the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), to be read together with Article 21. This right extends specifically to access to demarcated footpaths. The Court noted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being oriented around the regulation of vehicle insurance and licensing, has never focused on pedestrian rights, addressing only driving regulations rather than pedestrian entitlements.
The Court further reminded municipal corporations, municipalities, panchayats, and urban development authorities of their duty to construct proper footpaths wherever roads exist. A violation of this duty may amount to a violation of a constitutional right, for which a constitutional remedy is available under Sections 38 to 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in addition to any claim available under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Noting the absence of any specific law on pedestrian rights, the Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to establish a permanent authority to address pedestrian rights, maintain safe footpaths, and raise public awareness. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the right to walk on footpaths has been established as a fundamental right, and adequate remedies will be made available to injured persons, with the Union Government to look into the matter of any future injured person. The Court held that every human being has a right to walk freely and safely on a footpath, and that it is the duty of local bodies and the government to ensure that footpaths remain free, safe, and free of vehicular movement, with adequate remedies available to all persons whose fundamental right is violated.
VI. Critical Analysis
The judgment operates at the intersection of routine motor accident compensation and Article 21 jurisprudence, settling the principles governing computation of dependency loss for minor victims. The Supreme Court has previously held that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes the right to clean water, shelter, and livelihood; this judgment extends that jurisprudence by recognising the right to walk on a footpath as a right under Article 21. The Court clarified that this right is not confined to walking from one place to another but also encompasses freedom of expression, participation in protests, communication, religious processions, and other public activities protected under Article 19(1).
The judgment has, however, faced criticism. Framing law is ordinarily the function of the legislature and the executive, and many commentators believe the Supreme Court exceeded its reasonable powers by directing government ministries to formulate a specialised law for pedestrian safety and security. The judgment does not prescribe deadlines for the formulation of new laws or a clear enforcement mechanism, and it risks remaining symbolic unless followed by legislative action.
Despite these concerns, the judgment marks a significant step forward. While the Supreme Court has long acknowledged the importance of pedestrian safety, this is the first instance in which such recognition has been elevated to the status of a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The decision is likely to encourage further judicial development in this area, though the ultimate success of this right will depend on legislative and executive follow-through.
