Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and Art.21 – Right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads, a fundamental right:
Held: The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution – It is integral to the right to movement guaranteed u/Art.19(1)(d), r/w Art.19(1)(a), Art.19(1) (b), Art.19(1) (c) and Art.21 – The fundamental right to walk will take within its sweep the right to demarcated footpaths – These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles – The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths has a correlative duty – If the road exists, there is a duty to ensure that there are demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for walkers – The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and even panchayats, who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths and other necessary pedestrian infrastructure, as walking is integral to life – The violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths will entitle the citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation – This remedy is independent of the remedies that are available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. [Paras 4,5, 20(a)-(c)] Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(d) r/w Arts.19(1)(a), (b), (c) and Art.21 – Right to walk on demarcated footpaths, a fundamental right – Need for legal framework not only for declaring the right, but also to recognise the duty bearers; establishment of a regulatory body:
Held: The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk – In fact, it has been an impediment and, in many ways, undermined the precious rights of walkers – Though the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is integral to Arts.21 and 19(1) (d), there is no legislation – It is compelling to lay down a statutory framework not only for declaring the right, but also to recognise the duty bearers – The Act must protect, enhance, and provide quick remedies for violations, and also establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce, and implement this precious right – Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development, Road Transport and Highways, to reflect on the compelling necessity for initiating the necessary legal framework – A copy may also be sent to the Law Commission for examining the statutory framework for protecting the right, identifying the duty bearers and provisioning remedies – Constitutional Courts also have a duty to declare with clarity the existence of this fundamental right and ensure that the existing civil and the constitutional remedies are accessible and effective – To enhance and effectuate the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths, it is necessary to establish a regulatory body – Role of, discussed – Registry to re-number this case as a petition u/Art.32 of the Constitution by changing the cause title to Re: Fundamental Right to Walk and Footpath – The Government of India, through the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rural Development and Road Transport and Highways, impleaded as a party in person. [Paras 6, 13, 16, 21] Motor Accidents Claim – Reduction of compensation, when not justified – Appellant’s five-year old son died as a result of the injuries after he was hit by a tanker while they were walking towards his school – Claim petition filed by appellant for compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- – MACT granted Rs.7,82,000/with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation – Appeal filed by the appellant as well as the Insurance Company, High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and, while allowing the respondent’s appeal, reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,70,000/- – Interference with: Held: High Court erred in reducing the compensation granted by MACT – In Karuna Parmar v. Prakash Sinha, involving a similar factual situation in which the deceased minor was 6 years old, this Court fixed the child’s daily income at Rs.223/- and, by referring to the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, it prescribed the wages payable to a skilled worker for the year 2014 – Consequently, the monthly income was calculated at Rs. 6,690/-, and the deceased’s annual income was taken as Rs. 80,280/- (6,690 × 12) – After adding 40% towards future prospects, the annual income was assessed as Rs.1,12,392/(80,280 + 32,112) – Upon deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency was determined as Rs.56,196/- – Applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency was computed as Rs.10,11,528/- – Applying the same to the instant case, the compensation is recalculated as Rs.10,11,528/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.96,800/towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 18,150 towards funeral expenses –Appellant entitled to compensation of Rs.11,44,628/- – Minimum Wages Act, 1948. [Paras 18,19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.