Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Number: IA No. 50798 OF 2025 in W.P.(Civil) No. 295/2012
Case Title: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors
Date of Order: 14 May 2025
Cases Referred:
- Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors (1985) 3 SCC 545
- Bombay HC in High Court on its own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21221
- Karnataka HC in the case of D.S. Ramachandra Reddy vs. The Commissioner of Police, Bangalore & Ors 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12223
Brief:
The Background
The Supreme Court was hearing a public interest matter that raised critical concerns about the lack of proper footpaths, rampant encroachments, and the resulting safety hazards to pedestrians — especially those with disabilities. The Court acknowledged the urgent and widespread nature of the problem, noting that without accessible and continuous footpaths, pedestrians are effectively forced onto the streets, putting their lives at constant risk.
Key Observations and Findings
The Bench, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, made a series of pointed observations that reflect both the legal urgency and the human costs of inaccessibility:
- "Right to have unobstructed and disabled-friendly footpaths is guaranteed under Article 21," the Court unequivocally stated.
- The safety of pedestrians is not a luxury, but a constitutional obligation of the state.
- The absence of accessible footpaths disproportionately affects persons with disabilities, older persons, and others who rely on mobility aids.
Supreme Court's Directions
The Court issued a set of sweeping directions to ensure nationwide compliance and structural reforms:
-
Mandatory Accessibility: Footpaths must be designed and maintained to be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.
-
Encroachment Removal: All encroachments from footpaths must be removed without exception.
-
Universal Footway Standards: Every public road must have proper, inclusive footpaths or walkways.
-
Policy Mandate: All States and Union Territories must evolve and implement policies for the construction, maintenance, and protection of accessible footpaths.
-
Compliance Timeline:
- States and UTs must frame guidelines in line with those issued by the Bombay High Court in High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and DS Ramchandra Reddy v. Commissioner of Police.
- The Union of India is directed to place on record existing or new national guidelines within two months.
- The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 1st August 2025, to review compliance.
Relevance of the Bombay High Court Model
The Supreme Court emphasized that States should refer to the Bombay High Court’s earlier directions, which already set a progressive precedent on footpath design, accessibility, and encroachment-free pedestrian zones. This reinforces the principle that access to infrastructure must be inclusive by design, not adjusted retroactively.
A Constitutional and Human Rights Milestone
This judgment is not merely about footpaths. It is a profound reiteration that urban design and infrastructure planning are constitutional issues. For persons with disabilities, accessible pedestrian infrastructure is not an amenity; it is a prerequisite for dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.
The Supreme Court’s order stands as a powerful reminder that accessibility is not optional — it is a mandated right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment sets the stage for a nationwide shift in how cities and towns approach pedestrian infrastructure to ensure accessible and dignified mobility for all people with disabilities.
Next Steps for Advocates and Stakeholders
- Monitor Compliance: Civil society organizations, disability rights groups, and urban planners must actively engage with State governments to ensure meaningful implementation.
- Participate in Policy Making: Stakeholders must demand participation in the framing of guidelines to reflect diverse accessibility needs.
- Use as Precedent: This order provides strong judicial backing to challenge inaccessible infrastructure in any city or district.
Taking note of standards laid down by the Indian Roads Congress and other authorities, the Court directed: All State Governments and Union Territories shall frame guidelines in line with the High Court directions and file compliance reports within two months. The Union of India shall also place on record the policy/guidelines issued for protecting the rights of pedestrians within two months.
As we approach the next hearing on 01 August 2025, this judgment offers a foundation to push for inclusive, safe, and equitable urban mobility — not just as a policy goal, but as a constitutional promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment