Article 21 Important Case Laws: Landmark Judgments & Right to Walk Explained

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every person the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Although the Constitution defines this right in simple words, the Supreme Court has expanded its scope through several landmark judgments over the years.

Today, Article 21 protects much more than life and liberty. It includes rights such as privacy, dignity, education, legal aid, a clean environment, and the freedom to choose a life partner. Most recently, the Supreme Court recognised the Right to Walk Safely as a fundamental right, making pedestrian safety an important part of constitutional protection.

This explains the important Article 21 case laws, highlights the latest Right to Walk judgment, and discusses why these decisions are significant for every citizen. 

What Is Article 21?

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted the words "life" and "personal liberty" in a very broad manner. The Court has used Article 21 to recognise rights such as the right to privacy, the right to travel abroad, and the right to choose one's life partner.

Landmark Rights Recognised Under Article 21 

The Supreme Court has recognised several fundamental rights under Article 21. Some of the most notable ones are listed below.

• Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.

• Right to Travel Abroad: The Court recognised that the right to travel abroad is also a part of personal liberty under Article 21.

• Right to Choose a Life Partner: The Court has held that the right to choose one's life partner is a fundamental right protected under Article 21.

These cases show how the Court has used Article 21 as a living provision. It adapts to the changing needs of society.

Right to Walk Recognised as a Fundamental Right 

Background of the Case

One of the most recent and significant judgments under Article 21 is the case of Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz & Anr. v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. This case arose from a deeply tragic incident. A five-year-old child was walking to school with his father. He was walking on the road, as there was no footpath available. A tanker came from behind and struck the child. The child died due to the accident.

Journey of the Case 

The father approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of ₹25 lakh. The Tribunal awarded ₹7,82,000 with interest. Both the father and the insurance company challenged the award before the High Court.

While the father's appeal for enhancement was dismissed, the High Court allowed the insurer's appeal and reduced the compensation to ₹4,70,000.

The father then approached the Supreme Court, which enhanced the compensation to ₹11,44,628 after recalculating it in accordance with settled principles governing compensation in motor accident cases. 

Supreme Court's Key Observations 

The Court noted that what happened to this child could happen to anyone. The real problem was the absence of proper walking infrastructure for pedestrians. The Bench made the following key observations.

• Society is obsessed with vehicles: Urban planning in India has focused entirely on roads for vehicles. The needs of pedestrians have been completely ignored.

• Lack of footpaths increases the risk of road accidents: When there are no footpaths, people are forced to walk on roads. Vehicle drivers then treat pedestrians as a nuisance. This leads to accidents and deaths.

The right to walk is a fundamental right. The Bench held that the right to walk safely on roads and footpaths is a fundamental right. This right flows from Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression), Article 19(1)(b) (right to peaceful assembly), Article 19(1)(c) (right to form associations), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

The Supreme Court stated that the right to walk does not merely mean the freedom to move from one place to another. It also means the right to have a proper and safe space to walk. The state must provide footpaths for pedestrians. The judgment emphasised that pedestrian safety must receive priority while planning and maintaining public roads. 

Government's Responsibility Towards Pedestrian Safety 

The Supreme Court held that the government is directly accountable for protecting the right to walk. Since it is a fundamental right, citizens can enforce it through courts. If the state fails to provide proper footpaths, a citizen can file a case for violation of their fundamental rights.

It directed all municipal corporations, municipalities, panchayats, and development authorities to:

• Build proper footpaths for pedestrians

• Maintain these footpaths in good condition

• Ensure that footpaths are free from encroachments

The Court also recognised a common problem in India. Even where footpaths exist, they are often occupied by vehicles, carts, and shops. This makes them unusable for pedestrians. The Bench made it clear that such encroachments must be removed.

Legal Remedies Available to Citizens 

Since the Right to Walk has been recognised as a constitutional right, citizens can seek legal remedies if authorities fail to provide safe pedestrian infrastructure. 

First, they can file a case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act. Second, they can file a separate case for violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution. Third, they can claim compensation from the government for the violation.

These remedies are independent of each other. A citizen can use all of them together.

Supreme Court's Directions on a Pedestrian Rights Law 

The Supreme Court did not stop at recognising the right. It also called for a proper legal framework to protect this right. The Bench directed the following ministries to consider making a law on pedestrian rights:

• Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

• Ministry of Rural Development

• Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

• Law Commission of India

The Court suggested that such a law should define the responsibilities of government bodies. It should also provide quick remedies to pedestrians when their rights are violated. The Court further suggested creating a regulatory body to monitor footpath construction and maintenance across the country. 

Why the Supreme Court Is Monitoring the Case 

The Supreme Court made it clear that this case will not be closed. The Supreme Court will continue to monitor the implementation of its directions. This is because court orders in India are often not followed up. The Bench wants to ensure that the right to walk is actually protected on the ground and not just on paper.

Earlier Supreme Court Judgments on Pedestrian Safety 

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has spoken on pedestrian rights. In the case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, the Court had earlier held that India must have proper footpaths. It said that footpaths must be unobstructed and must be disability-friendly so that persons using wheelchairs can also use them.

The present case is the third in a series of cases on pedestrian safety. Other pending cases in the Supreme Court deal with issues such as wrong-side driving, helmet use, and misuse of horns and sirens on roads.

Why This Judgment Is Important 

The recognition of the Right to Walk as a fundamental right significantly expands the scope of Article 21. It places a constitutional obligation on governments and local authorities to create safe pedestrian infrastructure. The judgment also strengthens citizens' ability to seek legal remedies when unsafe roads or missing footpaths violate their right to life and dignity. 

The recognition of the Right to Walk marks another significant step in the evolution of Article 21. It reinforces that the right to life includes the ability to move safely and with dignity. As governments work towards implementing the Supreme Court's directions, this judgment is expected to play an important role in improving pedestrian safety and urban planning across the country.