The Battle for the Footpath: Reconciling the Right to Walk with Urban Livelihoods
A recent Supreme Court judgment establishing a fundamental right to walk has brought India's urban space conflict into sharp focus. The challenge now is to create pedestrian-friendly cities without weaponising 'encroachment' against the urban poor.
The Pre-requisite: Understanding the Urban Space Conflict
To grasp the complexities of India's contested footpaths, one must first understand the legal principles, historical context, and key institutions that govern urban public spaces. The current debate is not merely about clearing sidewalks; it is a deep-seated conflict between competing rights and visions of the Indian city.
(1) KEY TERMS
- Right to Walk: A right, affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 19, 2026, as a fundamental right, entitling pedestrians to safe, unencumbered, and well-maintained footpaths. It has been interpreted as an extension of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Encroachment: The act of illegally occupying or using public land, such as footpaths or roads, for private purposes. The term is central to municipal laws and is often used to justify the eviction of street vendors, pavement dwellers, and slum residents.
- Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014: A central legislation enacted to protect the rights of urban street vendors and to regulate their activities through a formal framework of registration, demarcation of vending zones, and grievance redressal.
(2) BACKGROUND & TIMELINE
The legal discourse on public space and the rights of its inhabitants has evolved significantly over decades.
- 1985: In the case of Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the Right to Livelihood is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. While this gave pavement dwellers a constitutional foothold, the Court ultimately upheld the municipality's power to evict them, arguing that public rights of passage on pavements take precedence.
- 2014: Parliament enacted the Street Vendors Act. This law marked a paradigm shift from viewing vendors as illegal encroachers to recognizing them as legitimate service providers with a right to livelihood. It mandated the formation of Town Vending Committees (TVCs) to survey and regulate street vending.
- June 2021: A Supreme Court order led to the demolition of over 5,000 homes in Khori Basti on the Delhi-Haryana border, displacing thousands of families on the grounds of encroachment on forest land, highlighting the continued vulnerability of informal settlements.
- June 19, 2026: In a judgment stemming from a road accident case, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the 'right to walk on demarcated footpaths' as a fundamental right, directing the government to frame a law to enforce it.
(3) INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Three main sets of institutions are at the heart of this issue:
- The Judiciary: The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have been the primary arenas where the rights of pedestrians, pavement dwellers, and street vendors are adjudicated. Their judgments, from Olga Tellis (1985) to the 2026 ruling, have shaped the legal landscape.
- Central Government: The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) is the nodal ministry responsible for urban development policies, including the implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and national-level urban transport policies that advocate for non-motorised transport infrastructure.
- Local Government: Municipal Corporations and other Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), empowered by the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, are the implementing agencies on the ground. They are responsible for the maintenance of public spaces, the removal of encroachments under their respective Municipal Acts, and the constitution of Town Vending Committees as per the 2014 Act.
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.
What is the role of private vehicles in footpath obstruction?
A key aspect of footpath obstruction is the widespread and often unregulated parking of private vehicles. While street vendors are visibly targeted for removal, parked cars and two-wheelers frequently form a more pervasive obstruction. According to a 2009 analysis by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), the public land required to park a single car (approximately 23 sq. m) in New Delhi's Connaught Place had a potential monthly rental value of ₹36,000, representing a massive hidden subsidy for vehicle owners. Urban planning data cited by The Hindu suggests that while Delhi's entire slum population occupies just 3% of the city's land, private cars—parked for 90-95% of their lifecycle—occupy over 10% of the urban area. Despite the construction of multi-level parking facilities, their underutilisation is common due to the availability of free or poorly regulated on-street parking, which directly impedes pedestrian movement.
What are the legal and policy frameworks governing the issue?
The primary legal instrument intended to balance these competing interests is the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The Act's core principle is regulation, not eviction. Section 3(3) of the Act mandates the creation of Town Vending Committees (TVCs) in every city, with representation from vendors themselves, to conduct surveys and designate specific 'vending zones'. However, its implementation has been weak. A 2020 study by the Centre for Civil Society found that a majority of states had failed to fully constitute TVCs or conduct comprehensive surveys. This implementation gap means most vendors operate in a legal grey area, vulnerable to eviction drives by municipal authorities who often prefer 'anti-encroachment' drives over the nuanced process prescribed by the 2014 Act. The new law directed by the Supreme Court will have to be drafted to work in harmony with the principles of the Street Vendors Act.
The Conclusion: From Contestation to Coexistence
The Supreme Court's June 19, 2026 judgment has created a critical policy window, elevating the battle for the footpath from a municipal issue to a matter of enforcing a fundamental right. This forces a national conversation on India's urban design and social contract. The urgency stems from the judicial mandate to legislate; a poorly drafted law could become a tool for mass displacement, while a well-designed one could integrate pedestrian rights with the regulatory framework of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, paving the way for more inclusive and economically vibrant cities. The decisions made in the coming months will set the trajectory for urban governance for decades.
The immediate trajectory, likely spanning the next one to five years, will see the focus shift from judicial pronouncement to legislative action. The central government is expected to table a draft 'Right to Walk' Bill by 2027, which will likely trigger intense lobbying from diverse groups, including resident welfare associations, transport experts, and vendor unions. The key battleground will be the definition of 'unencumbered' and the powers granted to the new regulatory body directed by the Court. In the interim, municipalities, under pressure to show results, may intensify eviction drives. The real test will be whether the new framework moves beyond a simplistic 'clearance' model to a sophisticated spatial management plan that allocates space for walking, vending, and regulated parking.
The core governance challenge is to transition from a punitive to a planning-based approach. This requires building the capacity of Urban Local Bodies to survey, map, and regulate public spaces dynamically. It means enforcing parking regulations on private vehicles—which occupy over 10% of urban land in cities like Delhi—with the same rigour applied to street vendors. Societally, it forces a re-examination of who is considered a legitimate user of public space. The conflict over the footpath is a microcosm of the larger struggle to build cities that are not just engines of economic growth but also spaces of equity, where the right to walk and the right to work are seen as coexisting components of urban life.