Why a Framework — and why it's actually a Bill suite
The Constitution of India puts city streets, footpaths, cycle tracks, and the municipal corporations that build them on the State List — Entries 5, 13, and 18. Only state legislatures can legislate them. A single national bill that tells municipal corporations how wide to build footpaths is ultra vires if Parliament passes it as ordinary central legislation — short of amending the Seventh Schedule, the route around the State List barrier runs through several constitutional levers, not one.
But the legislative ask doesn't disappear — it gets distributed. The Framework is a Bill suite — four legislative instruments, each anchored on a different constitutional power. Together they accomplish what one unitary bill could not.
The Framework uses all four constitutional levers. Two are Parliament's direct legislative powers (the Motor Vehicles Act, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act). One is Parliament's spending power — conditional grants to states. One is the states' own legislative power, with the Centre supplying a model. Each stream is one of these levers; each produces or strengthens a specific Act, Rule, or Bill. Together they bypass the State List barrier without trying to amend the Constitution.
The constitutional logic
From the barrier to the four streams — visually.
Concurrent List Entry 35
Mechanically propelled vehicles — Parliament's direct legislative power via the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
MV Act Rules
Concurrent 20 + Article 282
Economic & social planning power, plus the Union's spending power — conditional grants to states.
NMT Mission
State legislatures
State List 5, 13, 18 used by states themselves; Article 252 standby for consenting states.
Model State Act
Article 253 + UN treaty
Treaty implementation power overrides the State List — the disability rights mandate already binds Parliament.
Universal Access
The four streams
Each stream has a constitutional anchor, a current legal activation, the existing plans and funds it connects to, where it stands today, and the organisations working on it.
Motor Vehicles Act Rules
Concurrent List Entry 35 → Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 138(1A) (regulating pedestrian and non-motorised vehicle access) and Section 210D (road design, construction, and maintenance standards for non-highway roads).
Motor Vehicles (Vulnerable Road User Protection) Amendment Bill — a Parliament Act strengthening §138(1A), §210D, and adding a statutory State Active Mobility Coordinator section, modelled on US 23 USC §217(d). Plus state-level Motor Vehicle Rule notifications under §138(1A) and §210D — one per state. Karnataka has notified its state rule (12 May 2026); 35 others have not. The central amendment Bill is the federal piece that locks the architecture in nationally.
Supreme Court, S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1189), 7 October 2025. Six-month deadline for all states/UTs to notify rules under §138(1A) and §210D. Compliance review listed for 7 May 2026. Centre's chosen national standard: IRC 103-2022 (Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety, Second Revision, June 2022).
- IRC 103-2022 (Pedestrian Safety Standard)
- Harmonised Guidelines 2021 (accessibility overlay)
- State Road Safety Action Plans
- State Road Safety Funds (MV Act cess-funded)
- Central Road & Infrastructure Fund
- MoRTH road safety grants
National Active Mobility Mission
Concurrent List Entry 20 (economic and social planning) — used to support NREGA 2005, NFSA 2013, and the Right to Education Act 2009 — combined with Article 282 authorising the Union to make grants for any public purpose.
National Active Mobility Mission Act — a Parliament Act creating the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, in the same instrument class as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 and the National Food Security Act 2013. The Act establishes the conditional-funding architecture; subsequent annual appropriations fund it. An alternative route is a Cabinet decision creating the Mission as a CSS plus an appropriations bill — slightly less durable than a standalone Act, but faster to launch.
None yet — to be created. Modelled on US 23 U.S.C. § 217 (conditional federal highway funds tied to state bicycle and pedestrian coordinator positions) and the EU TEN-T Regulation 2024/1679 (mandatory Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans for 431 urban nodes by 2027). Both prove that conditional funding architectures work at federal scale.
- National Urban Transport Policy 2014 (the broken §14.3.2 promise)
- AMRUT 2.0 (~Rs 2.99 lakh crore, 2021-26)
- Smart Cities Mission
- India Cycles4Change & Streets4People Challenges (2020-2024, with MoHUA + ITDP)
- 15th Finance Commission grants to ULBs (~Rs 4.36 lakh crore)
- Million Plus Cities Challenge Fund
- Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan (Accessible India Campaign)
- World Bank MUTP · ADB urban transport loans
- National Mission for Sustainable Habitat (under NAPCC)
Model State Active Mobility Act
State legislatures' own power under State List Entries 5, 13, and 18. Article 252 (state consent → Parliament binding Act) held in reserve for states that want a deeper national mandate.
State Active Mobility Acts — one per state, enacted by the state legislature under its own State List power. MoHUA distributes a Model State Active Mobility Act based on the Karnataka template; each state adapts and tables it. The Karnataka Active Mobility Bill (DULT draft) is the flagship state instrument the Framework asks for in every state, providing what the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules cannot reach: a state Active Mobility Cell, statutory Officers and Wardens, a Code of Conduct linked to driving licence training, and a rights-based framing.
Karnataka Active Mobility Bill (DULT draft, pending Cabinet approval). Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority Act 2022 (Karnataka Act 6 of 2023) — already enacted, with rules under public-comment review early 2026.
- State Comprehensive Mobility Plans (mandated by NUTP)
- Karnataka BMLTA Act 2022
- State Transport Department budgets
- Tamil Nadu Walking & Cycling Policy 2014
- Delhi UTTIPEC Pedestrian Design Guidelines 2010
- Existing state-level UMTAs (where they exist)
Universal Accessibility Integration
Article 253 (treaty implementation power, overrides the State List) + the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India on 1 October 2007.
Mandatory Union rules under Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 — the Union is under a Supreme Court mandamus to issue these (Rajive Raturi 2024). At the state level, the parallel instruments are §62 state rule-making for state-specific accessibility standards, and the enforcement machinery under §§44, 45, 46 and 89 for the central §40 rules — the Court's only directions to states under Rajive Raturi. Potentially also a strengthening amendment to §41 consolidating the unqualified "accessible roads" obligation. Together these operationalise the treaty obligation that already binds Parliament.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, Section 41(1)(c) imposes an unqualified duty on the appropriate Government to provide "accessible roads to address mobility necessary for persons with disabilities." Supreme Court, Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024 INSC 858), 8 November 2024 — anchored accessibility in Articles 14, 19, 21; struck down Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules 2017 as ultra vires; directed the Union to frame mandatory non-negotiable accessibility rules under Section 40 within three months.
- Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan (Accessible India Campaign — CSS, launched 2015)
- Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Universal Accessibility 2021 (binding via Rule 15(1)(a) of RPwD Rules)
- DEPwD Draft Accessibility Standards for the Transport and Mobility Sector (consultation 21 May 2025)
- Section 45(2) state action plans (mandated by RPwD Act)
- MSJE Disability Affairs budget
What works elsewhere
Two international precedents prove the conditional-funding architecture works at federal scale. India is the only large federation that has not yet made this transition.
United States
23 U.S.C. § 217
Federal highway funding is conditional on each state's department of transportation funding up to two Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator positions. Active transportation construction is a categorically eligible use of federal aid.
Survived five reauthorisations over three decades (TEA-21 → SAFETEA-LU → MAP-21 → FAST Act → IIJA).
European Union
TEN-T Regulation 2024/1679
In force July 2024, directly binding on all 27 Member States. 431 urban nodes must adopt Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans by 2027. Each Member State must designate a national SUMP contact point.
Replaced a non-binding 2013 Urban Mobility Package after that proved insufficient — the same policy-to-statute escalation the Framework proposes.
The case for investment
Bogotá's cycling infrastructure demonstrates the extraordinary returns of active mobility investment.
500 km of protected bike lanes · $130 million investment
Travel time savings + health benefits = $310M annual return on $130M investment.
Emissions eliminated = removing 4,800 cars from roads or planting 350,000 trees.
Reduced air pollution + increased physical activity = $230M in health benefits annually.
Infrastructure pays for itself in 5 months through economic and health benefits.
The constitutional basis behind every stream
The Framework rests on five deep-research workflows totalling 528 multi-agent calls, 130 sources, and 116 adversarially verified claims. Read the full strategic brief — written to be defensible to a senior Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs official.