Case at a glance: This is an interim, compliance-monitoring order, not a fresh final ruling. The Supreme Court asked the Centre to identify, or create, a central authority responsible for ensuring a demarcated footpath wherever a road exists, and to pick five towns or cities for a pilot project. The legal basis is the Court's 19 June 2026 judgment recognising a fundamental right to walk under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.
On 19 June 2026, in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, a five-year-old child walking to school on a road with no pedestrian infrastructure was killed by a tanker. The father claimed Rs 25 lakh; the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 7,82,000 and the High Court reduced it to Rs 4,70,000. The Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs 11,44,628 and, as reported, recognised the right to walk as a fundamental right, including safe, well-demarcated footpaths with priority over motorised movement.
On 5 October 2026 a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe took up the follow-up. With the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Centre, it asked the Union to identify a central authority for footpaths and to pick five cities for a pilot. Justice Narasimha is quoted as saying that a centralised authority is needed to do the planning.
The Key Question Before the Court
Who is responsible for ensuring that every road has a demarcated footpath, and how will the right to walk recognised in June 2026 be put into practice?
From a Right on Paper to an Authority on the Ground
The June judgment, as reported, treated the right to walk as part of Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, urged legislatures to enact pedestrian-rights frameworks, placed enforceable duties on urban authorities to demarcate and maintain footpaths, and recognised independent remedies against municipal bodies.
The 5 October order moves to implementation. The Centre must identify the authority responsible for ensuring footpaths wherever a road exists and, if none exists, create one with adequate funds, manpower, infrastructure and space. It must also select five towns or cities for a pilot and file a report in about three weeks.
What the Court Actually Ordered
- The Centre must identify the central authority responsible for ensuring demarcated footpaths wherever a road exists, or create one if none exists.
- Any such authority must be given adequate funds, manpower, infrastructure and space.
- The Centre must select five towns or cities for a pilot project and report back in about three weeks.
- This is an interim order for compliance; it does not lay down a new legal holding beyond the June judgment.
Why This Order Matters
- It shows the Court following a rights judgment with a concrete institutional mechanism and a timeline.
- It signals that pedestrian infrastructure is moving from a municipal afterthought to a monitored national concern.
- It supports constitutional and tort arguments alongside motor accident compensation claims where footpath failures contributed to harm.
- The pilot cities will indicate how the directions will be implemented on the ground.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Order?
For Motor Accident and Public-Interest Counsel
- Plead the absence of safe footpaths alongside the usual MACT grounds, citing the June 2026 judgment on the right to walk.
- Consider independent remedies against municipal bodies where infrastructure failures contributed to the accident.
For Government and Municipal Counsel
- Track the Centre's compliance report and pilot selection; municipal duties to demarcate and maintain footpaths are now being monitored by the Court.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court's 19 June 2026 judgment recognised the right to walk as a fundamental right, as reported.
- On 5 October 2026 the Court asked the Centre to identify or create a central authority for footpaths.
- The Centre must select five pilot cities and file a report in about three weeks.
- The 5 October order is interim; the substantive holding is the June judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The 5 October 2026 order is an interim, compliance-monitoring order following the 19 June 2026 judgment.
Identify or create a central authority responsible for ensuring demarcated footpaths wherever a road exists, and pick five towns or cities for a pilot project, reporting back in about three weeks.
The June judgment arose from a child's death in a motor accident claim, and it supports pleading the absence of safe footpaths and municipal responsibility alongside MACT claims.
Conclusion
A right to walk means little without someone responsible for the footpath. The Court's interim order is a step toward a named authority, a budget and a pilot, which will test whether the right becomes real on city streets.
Practical takeaway: In pedestrian accident matters, plead the footpath failure and the right to walk explicitly, and watch the Centre's report for the authority's name and mandate.