The Kerala High Court has affirmed that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, striking down proposals to install commercial kiosks on a public walkway in Kochi. The judgment establishes that urban infrastructure designed for pedestrians cannot be encroached upon for economic gain, even by statutory authorities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, the Tritvam Apartment Owners Association and its president, challenged the proposed installation of 20 commercial food kiosks on the Queens Walkway, a pedestrian footpath adjacent to the Goshree-Chathiyath Road in Kochi. The walkway, developed by Cochin Smart Mission Limited (CSML) and maintained by Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA), was designed as a multi-use public space with a 6.5-metre-wide paved footpath, a bicycle track, and tactile paving for the visually impaired. The petitioners alleged that the proposed kiosks would obstruct pedestrian movement, endanger public safety, and violate statutory prohibitions on vending in the area.
Key Facts
- The Queens Walkway was constructed between 2018 and 2020 as part of a beautification initiative by CSML, funded by GIDA.
- The walkway spans approximately 1.4 kilometres along the backwaters of Kochi, serving as a primary recreational and commuting corridor for residents.
- The footpath width is 6.5 metres, confirmed in the affidavit of the second respondent (GIDA).
- Each proposed kiosk is 4x3 metres in size, with additional space required for customer movement.
- The petitioners submitted representations to the Kochi Municipal Corporation and GIDA on 05.11.2025, objecting to the kiosk project.
- The 10th respondent, M/s. C. Jacob & Company, was selected through a tender process in October 2025 and has already spent over Rs. 50,00,000, erecting seven kiosks.
- The petitioner’s association had previously filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 129/2023) seeking an injunction, which was granted on 07.02.2023.
Procedural History
- 05.11.2025: Petitioners submitted formal representations to the Mayor and District Collector objecting to the kiosk project.
- October 2025: GIDA floated a tender for the upkeep and commercial operation of the Queens Walkway.
- 01.12.2025: M/s. C. Jacob & Company paid Rs. 7,50,000 as earnest money.
- 08.12.2025: Full payment of Rs. 84,00,000 made by the 10th respondent.
- January 2026: Construction of kiosks commenced.
- 22.06.2026: Writ Petition (WP(C) No. 6851 of 2026) filed before the Kerala High Court.
- 24.03.2026: State of Kerala impleaded as additional respondent via I.A. No. 1/2026.
- 07.04.2026: M/s. C. Jacob & Company impleaded as additional respondent via I.A. No. 5/2026.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that the Queens Walkway is a public street vested in the Kochi Municipal Corporation under Section 207(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. They contended that GIDA lacks statutory authority to permit commercial structures on footpaths, which are protected under the Street Vending Act, 2014 and the Kochi Municipal Byelaws. They emphasized that the walkway is a no-vending zone under Schedule V of the Byelaws, as no road in Division 68 (where the walkway lies) is listed in Schedule IV as a permitted vending zone.
Respondents (GIDA and 10th Respondent): Claimed ownership over the land under a Patta issued in 1994 and asserted that the kiosks are modular, temporary structures on adjacent deck space, not on the footpath. They argued that the project enhances tourism, generates revenue for maintenance, and follows international urban design norms. They further claimed that the petitioners had not objected to similar kiosks installed previously.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to restrain respondents from constructing, installing, or operating any commercial kiosks on the Queens Walkway. They also sought a declaration that the proposed kiosks violate the fundamental right to walk and the provisions of the Street Vending Act.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (i) Whether GIDA has statutory authority over the Goshree-Chathiyath Road and its footpath, and (ii) Whether commercial kiosks can be legally installed on a public footpath designated for pedestrian use under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Street Vending Act, 2014.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Section 207(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which vests all public roads, footpaths, and appurtenant land in the Municipality, except national or state highways. They cited Section 2(34) defining public street to include footpaths up to the boundary of adjacent property. They further invoked Section 4(3) and Schedule V of the Kochi Municipal Street Vending Byelaws, 2022, which classify all roads in Ward 68 (including the Queens Walkway) as prohibited vending zones. They argued that the right to walk is a fundamental right under Article 21, as affirmed in Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan (2026 INSC 647), and that encroachment on footpaths violates the duty of urban authorities to maintain safe pedestrian infrastructure.
For the Respondent
GIDA contended that it holds absolute title to the land under the Patta issued in 1994 and that the road was constructed on reclaimed land under Government Orders. It argued that the kiosks are not on the footpath but on adjacent deck space and that the project is a legitimate urban innovation. The 10th respondent emphasized substantial investment (Rs. 84 lakhs paid, Rs. 50 lakhs spent) and claimed that the petitioners had acquiesced to prior kiosk operations. They also argued that the Street Vending Act does not apply because no formal notification of a no-vending zone had been issued.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of statutory vesting, urban planning norms, and constitutional rights. It rejected GIDA’s claim of absolute ownership, holding that even though the land was originally granted via Patta, the moment a public road and footpath were constructed, Section 207(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 triggered automatic vesting in the Kochi Municipal Corporation. The Court cited Palakkad Municipality v. Krihnanunni to affirm that statutory vesting cannot be overridden by executive orders or land titles.
"The statutory vesting of the road on the Municipality is not defeated by the act of any party, including an order of the Government."
The Court then examined the nature of the Queens Walkway. Despite GIDA’s claim of "deck space," the Court found no evidence of any area separate from the 6.5-metre walkway designated for kiosks. The proposed kiosks would occupy 4x3 metres each, with additional space for customers, effectively reducing pedestrian width to unsafe levels. The Court emphasized that the walkway includes tactile paving for the visually impaired, and any obstruction would violate accessibility norms under the Indian Roads Congress Guidelines.
The Court further held that the Kochi Municipal Corporation’s Street Vending Byelaws, 2022, explicitly classify the area as a no-vending zone. Schedule V lists all roads in Division 68 as prohibited unless specified in Schedule IV - and no road in Division 68 is listed in Schedule IV. Thus, the area is legally a prohibited zone for vending.
The Court then turned to constitutional principles. It relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan (2026 INSC 647), which unequivocally held that:
"The right to walk is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution... integral to the right to movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21... The duty bearers are the urban development authorities, municipal corporations... who must endeavour to demarcate, construct, maintain, and safeguard footpaths."
The Court concluded that economic utility cannot override the fundamental right to safe, unobstructed pedestrian movement. The proposal was an afterthought, not part of the original design, and the lack of designated space for kiosks rendered the project unlawful.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing all respondents, including GIDA, CSML, Kochi Municipal Corporation, and M/s. C. Jacob & Company, to immediately cease construction, installation, and operation of any commercial kiosks on the Queens Walkway. All existing kiosks erected by the 10th respondent must be removed within four weeks from the date of this judgment. The Court further directed the Kochi Municipal Corporation to ensure the walkway is restored to its original pedestrian-only configuration and to undertake periodic maintenance in compliance with Indian Roads Congress guidelines.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Footpaths Are Non-Negotiable Public Spaces
- Practitioners must now treat any encroachment on footpaths - whether by municipal bodies, private developers, or statutory authorities - as a violation of Article 21.
- Any proposal to install vending stalls, kiosks, or temporary structures on footpaths must be challenged on grounds of fundamental rights, not merely administrative overreach.
Municipal Byelaws Trump Statutory Authority
- Where a municipal corporation has notified a no-vending zone under the Street Vending Act, 2014, even statutory bodies like GIDA cannot override it.
- The absence of a specific notification permitting vending in a zone amounts to an implicit prohibition - a critical point for litigants in urban planning disputes.
Design Intent Matters
- Urban infrastructure projects must be designed with pedestrian space as the primary consideration.
- Post-facto attempts to retrofit commercial use into pedestrian zones will be struck down unless dedicated, non-pedestrian space was planned from inception.
- Developers and authorities must document design intent and zoning compliance at the planning stage to avoid litigation.
Duty Bearers Are Clearly Defined
- Municipal corporations, urban development authorities, and even panchayats are duty bearers under Maniyar Iliyaz.
- Citizens may now invoke constitutional remedies not just against illegal construction, but against failure to maintain or protect existing footpaths.
Enforcement Timeline Is Binding
- The four-week removal deadline sets a precedent for swift compliance in public interest litigation.
- Delayed enforcement will now be viewed as contempt of court, not mere administrative delay.
