What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

Examiners may confuse Article 21 (right to life) with Article 19(1)(g) (right to profession). The article explicitly differentiates between pedestrians' right to walk (Article 21) and vendors' right to trade (Article 19(1)(g)). A common trap would be to ask which article protects the right to walk on footpaths – answer: Article 21, not 19.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: Article 21 expanded to include right to walk on footpaths (SC Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha & Atul S. Chandurkar) 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (judicial expansion of fundamental rights) 3. Target this Legal Point: Street Vendors Act 2014 under Article 19(1)(g) – potential conflict with pedestrian rights

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 1 of 25

SC Declares Right to Walk on Demarcated Footpaths as Fundamental Right under Article 21

Q: Which constitutional article did the Supreme Court expand to include the right to walk on demarcated footpaths?

Article 21, The Supreme Court declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life). This is a further expansion of the scope of Article 21, which already covers various aspects like right to livelihood, clean environment, etc.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court judgment on the right to walk: 1. The Bench consisted of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar. 2. The Court declared the right to walk on footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 19. 3. The case arose from the death of a five-year-old boy in Karnataka. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct as the article mentions Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar. Statement 2 is incorrect because the right was declared under Article 21 (Right to Life), not Article 19. Statement 3 is correct as the judgment came in a case seeking higher compensation for a five-year-old boy killed by a tanker lorry in Karnataka. Hence option B is correct.

Q: Which Act was mentioned in the article as protecting street vendors under Article 19(1)(g) and potentially facing disputes with the new pedestrian right?

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, The article explicitly states that the Street Vendors Act 2014 seeks to protect vendors under Article 19(1)(g) and that the new judgment 'is also likely to set up disputes with the 2014 Act'. The COTPA 2003 is mentioned separately as an example of legislation with mixed success.

Q: What potential negative consequence of the judgment does the editorial warn about, based on past experiences with rights-based legislation in India?

Gentrification of public spaces and criminalisation of informal commercial activity of the urban poor, The editorial warns that if the state uses the ruling to 'cleanse' streets of informal commercial activity, it could gentrify public spaces and criminalise the survival of the urban poor, similar to how weak implementation of the Street Vendors Act has led to eviction drives and informal rent-seeking.

Polity InfrastructureCORE

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

19 Jun 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:Article 21Street Vendors Act 2014Article 19(1)(g)Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 20035-year-old boy death case in Karnataka

Bodies:Supreme CourtMunicipalities

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Supreme Court Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar declares right to walk on footpaths as fundamental right under Article 21.

2.The judgment arises from a case seeking higher compensation for a 5-year-old boy killed by a tanker lorry in Karnataka, highlighting pedestrian neglect and encroachment on footpaths.

3.Editorial warns of potential conflicts with the Street Vendors Act 2014 and risks of gentrification and criminalization of the urban poor if state action focuses only on clearing pavements.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court has declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 21. This landmark judgment expands the scope of the right to life, emphasizing state duty to provide safe pedestrian infrastructure. Important for understanding judicial activism, constitutional interpretation, and urban governance.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Constitutional ArticleArticle 21 (Right to Life)

SC BenchJustices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar

Related ActStreet Vendors Act, 2014 (Article 19(1)(g))

Other Act MentionedCigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003

Trigger Case5-year-old boy's death in Karnataka

1-Minute Revision

›Constitutional Article: Article 21 (Right to Life)
›SC Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar
›Target this Data: Article 21 expanded to include right to walk on footpaths (SC Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha & Atul S. Chandurkar)
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court of India (judicial expansion of fundamental rights)
›Target this Legal Point: Street Vendors Act 2014 under Article 19(1)(g) – potential conflict with pedestrian rights

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

SC Verdict

Supreme Court declares right to walk on demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 21.

🚶

Pedestrian Neglect

Court notes pedestrians are treated as a 'nuisance', footpaths are encroached by parking, vendors, utility poles, and construction debris.

🛣️

Infrastructure & Implementation Challenge

Judgment emphasizes state duty to build footpaths; warns of conflicts with Street Vendors Act and risk of gentrification if used merely to clear pavements.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has progressively expanded Article 21 (Right to Life). This judgment adds the right to walk on demarcated footpaths to that list. The case originated from the death of a five-year-old boy hit by a tanker lorry in Karnataka, seeking higher compensation. The Bench noted that with motorisation, walking has become inconvenient and pedestrians are often seen as a 'nuisance'.

Core Analysis & Implications

The lack of a national pedestrian law means pedestrian safety is governed by fragmented municipal laws and street design guidelines. Most cities lack continuous, obstruction-free footpaths due to encroachments (parking, vendors, debris) and competing pressures like road widening. The editorial draws parallels with the mixed success of rights-based legislation like the Street Vendors Act 2014, which aimed to protect vendors under Article 19(1)(g) but has been poorly implemented due to delayed surveys and eviction drives. Similarly, the COTPA 2003 succeeded through social messaging and fines, not restitution. The judgment could create legal disputes with the Street Vendors Act.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Court's 'constitutional nudge' may lead to real change only if the state allocates funds for pedestrian infrastructure, rather than using the ruling merely as a compensation tool after tragedies. There is a risk of gentrification if streets are 'cleansed' of informal commercial activity, criminalising the survival of the urban poor. The editorial argues that cultural change – that pavements belong to pedestrians – is as important as legal rights, and that the state must fulfil its duty to build footpaths for the right to have meaning.

Key Facts at a Glance

Constitutional ArticleArticle 21 (Right to Life)

SC BenchJustices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar

Related ActStreet Vendors Act, 2014 (Article 19(1)(g))

Other Act MentionedCigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003

Trigger Case5-year-old boy's death in Karnataka

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which constitutional article did the Supreme Court expand to include the right to walk on demarcated footpaths?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court judgment on the right to walk:

1. The Bench consisted of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar.

2. The Court declared the right to walk on footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 19.

3. The case arose from the death of a five-year-old boy in Karnataka.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, Banking

Which Act was mentioned in the article as protecting street vendors under Article 19(1)(g) and potentially facing disputes with the new pedestrian right?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, State PSC

What potential negative consequence of the judgment does the editorial warn about, based on past experiences with rights-based legislation in India?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →InfrastructureView Topic MCQs →

Next Supreme Court Declares Right to Walk on Footpaths as Fundamental Right, Pedestrian Deaths Surge 163%

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

SC: Right to Walk on Demarcated Footpaths is Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(d) & Article 21

The Supreme Court declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, prioritizing pedestrians over motorized vehicles. It has now directed all states and UTs to respond on implementation, making it a high-yield topic for Prelims (constitutional articles, dates) and Mains (urban governance, fundamental rights).

Polity Current Affairs

SC Directs Removal of Unauthorised Structures on National Highways Within 60 Days After 34 Deaths

Following 34 road deaths in two accidents in Rajasthan and Telangana, the Supreme Court has directed all states to remove unauthorised structures within the Right of Way on National Highways within 60 days. Maharashtra has issued an ultimatum to its urban bodies to comply, as the SC warns of summoning Chief Secretaries of defaulting states.

Polity Current Affairs

AP Pedestrian Safety Policy 2026: SC Recognises Right to Walk, 36,526 Pedestrian Deaths in 2024, Section 198A Fine

The Supreme Court recognized the right to walk on footpaths as a fundamental right. Andhra Pradesh became the first state to notify a pedestrian safety policy, mandating audits, removal of encroachments, and a Rs 1 lakh fine under Section 198A MV Act for infrastructure failure causing death. With 1 in 5 road deaths being pedestrians (36,526 in 2024), this policy is a landmark for urban governance and social justice.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Orders Sealing of 16,726 Illegal Structures in Meerut, Forms Judicial Commission Led by Justice Dhulia

The Supreme Court has taken a stern stance against illegal constructions in Meerut, ordering the sealing of over 16,000 properties and demolition of unauthorised structures. A judicial commission headed by former SC judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia will investigate the role of the Meerut Development Authority and possible collusion. This case highlights the court's proactive role in urban governance and personal accountability of officials for loss of life.

Polity Current Affairs

Judicial Infrastructure Committee Submits Interim Report; Law Ministry Gets ₹4,509 Cr in Budget 2026-27

The Judicial Infrastructure Advisory Committee, chaired by Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar, has submitted its interim report to the CJI. The committee's blueprint aims to modernize courts and address infrastructural deficiencies, especially concerning amid reduced budget allocation for the Law Ministry (₹4,509.06 crore in 2026-27). Students must focus on this for exam relevance to judicial reforms, e-Courts, and budget allocation.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Revises Interim Stay, Preserves Allahabad HC Quashing of NSA Detention Under Article 21

The Supreme Court revised its September 23 interim order, restricting the stay to only certain strictures and costs against the Noida DM, thereby preserving the Allahabad High Court's landmark quashing of a DU student's NSA detention. The case also raises serious questions about the SC's roster system and 'out-of-turn' listing, making it a critical study point for judicial review, preventive detention safeguards, and constitutional procedures.

Polity Current Affairs

AP High Court Declares Three-Capitals Petitions Infructuous; Amaravati Now Sole Capital Under AP Reorganisation (Amendment) Act 2026

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has deemed all petitions against the proposed three-capitals model as infructuous after Parliament amended the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, making Amaravati the sole capital by law. This ends a long-standing political and legal battle, with implications for state governance and federal structure.

Polity Current Affairs

Patna HC Rules Religious Freedom Under Article 25 Subject to Public Order and Morality

Patna High Court holds that the right to profess and practise religion under Article 25 is not absolute and can be restricted for public order, morality, and health. This reiterates the essential religious practices doctrine and clarifies that constitutional protection does not extend to every mode of exercise. A plea for 300 devotees in a religious procession in Siwan, Bihar, was dismissed citing past law-and-order incidents.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

SC Declares Right to Walk on Demarcated Footpaths as Fundamental Right under Article 21

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

SC Verdict

Pedestrian Neglect

Infrastructure & Implementation Challenge

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance