The absence of safe and comfortable footpaths to walk on, even when they exist, their subjugation to motor transport, has been a civilisational problem, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar — which declared pedestrians’ right to walk on a demarcated footpath a fundamental right — lamented that urban planning gradually prioritised motorised transport over human movement.
“It is rather strange that we failed to focus on recognising and securing this ‘right to walk’. It may be because wheels eclipsed our imagination, and our municipal administration was busy creating roads that are suitable for motorised vehicles.
“It could also be elitism to start with, for machines with wheels were only for the rich, but as economies progressed and cheaper motor vehicles were introduced, the entire spectrum of motorised transportation dominated the roads, pushed aside the walkers to the extent that they are treated as a nuisance for the drivers who routinely run over the walkers and their footpaths," the top court said.
“This should stop from now on as we declare the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads,” the Bench said. “It is not at all difficult to imagine how a wide, well-demarcated and uninterrupted footpath can change the beauty of and equitable access to our cities and towns — this could truly be transformative of our urban and rural living,” it said.
“In reality, how much does it take to create a well-demarcated footpath wherever a road exists? All that the fundamental right to walk demands is a comfortable space for an easy and carefree walk. Should this not be the minimum of the minimum duty that a municipal authority owes to the citizens?” it asked.
“Walking has always triggered the Indian imagination — it has deep cultural, social, religious, political and reformative roots. Walking is a struggle for the not so fortunate, meditation in motion for many, resistance for others, discovery for the inquisitive, a cohesive strategy for sharp socio-political minds. It certainly did inspire and ignite some of the ideals of the freedom struggle — which we have a duty to cherish Article 51-A of the Constitution. In that sense, walking is not just motion, it certainly embodies expressional, congregational and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b) and Article 19 (1)(c),” the Bench noted.
“Unfortunately, we have failed to recognise these aspects to such an extent that the phrase “pedestrian” has acquired pejorative shades. We labour to emphasize the freedom to walk subject to reasonable restrictions, only to ensure that access to common spaces — in both urban areas and rural areas — is distributed in such a way that it is not a monopoly of the motorised class alone,” it said.
