The Supreme Court held that citizens have a fundamental right to walk on demarcated footpaths alongside motorised roads.
The court said the right to walk is primary and has priority over the movement of motorised vehicles.
A joint committee told the NGT that crop loss in Guttenadevi village, Andhra Pradesh, could not be attributed solely to nearby aquaculture farms.
The Kerala High Court said electro-homeopathy is regulated as a branch of homeopathic medicine under state medical practitioners’ laws.
The Supreme Court on June 19, 2026, held that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul Sharachchandra Chandurkar said the right is integral to the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court said the fundamental right to walk includes the right to demarcated footpaths. This right, it said, is primary and has priority over the movement of motorised vehicles.
The court held that if a road exists, there is a corresponding duty to ensure demarcated and well-maintained footpaths for pedestrians. The duty bearers include urban development authorities, municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats, which must demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard footpaths and other pedestrian infrastructure.
Violation of the right to walk on demarcated footpaths would entitle citizens to invoke constitutional and legal remedies against duty bearers for restitution and compensation, the court said. This remedy is independent of remedies available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
“The citizen’s fundamental right to walk on a demarcated footpath is primary and shall have priority over movement by motorised vehicles,” the order said.
The court added that the Motor Vehicles Act “is not and has never been the statute that recognises the fundamental right to walk”. It said the absence of safe and comfortable footpaths, and their subordination to motor transport even where they exist, had become a “civilisational problem”.
The Supreme Court noted that there is no legislation governing the right to walk on demarcated footpaths and said there is a compelling need for a statutory framework to recognise the right, identify duty bearers, provide quick remedies for violations and establish a full-time regulator to plan, enforce and implement it.
The court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the ministries of housing and urban affairs, rural development, and road transport and highways to consider the need for a legal framework. A copy was also directed to be sent to the Law Commission to examine a statutory framework for protecting the right, identifying duty bearers and providing remedies.
A joint committee report filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on June 16, 2026 said the allegation of agricultural loss solely due to prawn farms in Guttenadeevi village, Dr B R Ambedkar Konaseema district, Andhra Pradesh, was not fully substantiated.
The report said the petitioner owns 1.90 acres in Guttenadevi village. No paddy has been cultivated there since 2019, and the land is presently fallow, waterlogged and weed-infested.
Water from the Pantabodhi irrigation source showed moderate salinity and sodium hazard, while water in the waterlogged field was highly saline and sodic, making it unsuitable for common field crops.
Soil analysis of the petitioner’s land indicated neutral to slightly alkaline pH and moderate salinity, with no evidence of heavy metal contamination. The committee noted that the area lies in a tidal, estuarine part of the Godavari delta, which is prone to salinity ingress and inundation. Many farmers in the area have shifted from agriculture to aquaculture for economic reasons.
The horticulture report attributed the poor health and low yield of 55 coconut palms on the applicant’s farm primarily to chronic neglect, lack of fertilisation and irregular irrigation. Neighbouring coconut gardens under proper management were producing good yields, the report said.
Based on the available data, the committee said the alleged “total crop loss solely due to surrounding aquaculture farms” was not fully substantiated. It said it was not possible to scientifically quantify or assign specific liability exclusively to nearby aquaculture ponds.
The committee recommended that the district administration, irrigation and agriculture departments improve drainage, desilt and regulate Pantabodhi and connected canals to reduce waterlogging and saline ingress, and explore freshwater irrigation support where feasible.
It also recommended that the agriculture department prepare a site-specific reclamation plan for the petitioner’s land, including removal of stagnant saline water, soil amelioration with gypsum and organic manure, and, where viable, introduction of salt-tolerant crops or varieties under suitable schemes.
The fisheries department and Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board were asked to ensure that all nearby aquaculture ponds are registered and operated according to Coastal Aquaculture Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority norms, with no discharge or overtopping of pond water into irrigation channels or neighbouring agricultural lands.
The committee also suggested periodic soil and water quality monitoring in the petitioner’s land, Pantabodhi and suitable control fields, along with a micro-level land-use and salinity management plan for Guttenadevi and surrounding villages to balance agriculture and aquaculture.
Electro-homeopathy is a branch of homeopathic medicine and is regulated by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, and the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021, the Kerala High Court said on June 16, 2026.
A bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A K held that, on the facts of the case, the qualification obtained by the first respondent/writ petitioner, even assuming it was recognised, was in a branch of homeopathic medicine.
The court said that if he pursued practice as an electro-homeopathic medicine practitioner, he would be regulated by the two statutes. “To hold otherwise would be disastrous for the people of this country, for, it is their lives that are at stake,” the bench said.