The Battle for the Footpath: Reconciling the Right to Walk with Urban Livelihoods

The Main Explanatory: Deconstructing the Conflict

The Supreme Court's elevation of the 'right to walk' to a fundamental right has intensified the long-standing debate over who owns India's urban public spaces. While the judgment is a victory for pedestrian safety, it raises critical questions about its implementation and its potential impact on the livelihoods of millions who depend on these very spaces.

What is the core tension created by the new judgment?

The central conflict arises from the collision of two fundamental rights, both derived from Article 21 of the Constitution (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). On one side is the newly affirmed right of pedestrians to safe and clear footpaths. On the other is the right to livelihood of street vendors and the implicit right to shelter for pavement dwellers, as first recognized in the Olga Tellis (1985) case. The Supreme Court's directive on June 19, 2026, to frame a law for an 'unencumbered' right to walk forces the state to reconcile these competing claims. The judgment explicitly states, “The fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths shall override the privilege of a motorised vehicle,” but its silence on how this right interacts with the right to livelihood is the primary source of the current policy dilemma.

How has the concept of 'encroachment' been applied selectively?

Municipal laws empower authorities to remove 'encroachments' from public land. However, critics argue that the state's application of this power has been selective and class-biased, overwhelmingly penalising the urban poor while more powerful entities face fewer consequences. For instance, in the case of the Mahipalpur Ridge in New Delhi, slums were cleared for 'biodiversity conservation', while hotels and malls were permitted on the same forest land. Similarly, during the Khori Basti demolitions of June 2021, the Faridabad Municipal Corporation removed over 5,000 homes of low-income families but allegedly left farmhouses and commercial establishments in the vicinity untouched, as reported by The Hindu. This selective application creates a perception that encroachment is defined not by the act itself, but by the identity of the occupier.