Right to walk on footpath is a fundamental right.

By

 Supreme Court declares that Right to walk on footpath is a Fundamental Right under Article 19 (I )(d) and Article 21 of Constitution of India. These rights are primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles." Appelant victim granted compensation of 11.5 lakh

The Bench held  that this should stop now, the bench also stated that the Motor Vehicle Act has also caused impediment in recognising this right to walk: "This should stop from now on as we declare the fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths.


The Bench held that The Motor Vehicles Act has not been and has never been a statute that recognised the fundamental right to walk. In fact, Motor Vehicles Act has been an impediment and in many ways undermines the precious rights of the walkers.The absence of safe and comfortable footpaths to walk on, and even when they exist, their subjugation to motor transport, has been a civilizational problem."

Date of Judgement:19.06.2026

Maniyar Iliyaz Sheikh Riyaz Versus P. Ayyappan

Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Judgement Headnotes June 2026 Civil & Criminal

By
Supreme Court Latest Updates  Posted On: 22-06-2026 Supreme Court Judgement Headnotes June 2026 Medical Negligence -- Summoning order under Section 304A IPC against doctor set aside for failure to await PGI Expert Report. Sourced by: Shakil Ahmed Advocate  Peter Lane Kolkata 73 Rohit Lalit v. Sourabh Chabbra (P&H HC) (Reserved on: 21.05.2026 Decided on: 05.06.2026) ** Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section, 223, 528 -- Quashing of summoning order -- Medical negligence -- Complaint alleging death due to negligent treatment -- District Medical Negligence Board comprising six doctors opining that treating doctor could not be held negligent -- Trial Court having directed obtaining of second expert opinion from PGI Chandigarh -- Summoning order passed without awaiting PGI report and without recalling earlier order directing procurement of expert opinion -- Procedure adopted by Trial Court held contrary to its own directions and settled norms of judicial ...
Read more

Civi: Radical Changes in pleadings not allowed through amendment at advanced stage.

By
 Civil proceedings p leadings cannot be allowed to be radically altered at advanced stage by way of amendment, introducing new facts inconsistent with the original pleading in contravention of the bar contained in Order 6 Rule 7 Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.9, O.6, R.7, O. 6 R.17 proviso - Additional written statement The case of the defendant: she  had claimed in her written statement that she was bonafide co-sharer of suit premises - Whereas by way of additional written statement, she claimed that she was tenant under plaintiff - This was not case of fact not having been stated in written statement and that void being sought to be filled up by way of additional written statement -  defendant sought to completely change her original  stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession - she retracted from  her earlier stand of being co-sharer and introduced a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand stating that she was a tenant , in guise ...
Read more

Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 -

By
Image
Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 Of Constitution of India - PDA Ordered to Pay Rs. 10 Lakhs Compensation To Each Of the Victims .  The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice and established procedures - such acts violates Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e citizen's right to shelter -  Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) directed to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to each of the appellant. On March 1, 2021, a demolition notice was issued and served to the Appellants on March 6, 2021, with the actual demolition taking place the following day, March 7, 2021. This was done without granting them a fair chance to present their case before the appellate authority as stipulated in Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning Act. Among the Appellants, one is a Bar member, and another is a professor whose entire library was destroyed, resulting in their displaceme...
Read more