The constitutional basis for the National Active Mobility Framework

The bottom line

A single national bill that directly regulates footpaths and cycle tracks is not viable under the Seventh Schedule as it currently stands — short of a constitutional amendment, Parliament cannot enact such a bill as ordinary central legislation. The Constitution puts city streets, footpaths, cycle tracks, and the municipal corporations that build them squarely on the State List — only state legislatures can legislate them.

A National Active Mobility Framework is both possible and overdue. It combines four legal instruments, each anchored on a different constitutional power. The Framework is the law the National Urban Transport Policy itself promised twelve years ago. Karnataka has just shown — through its Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 2026, gazetted 12 May 2026 — that the architecture works. CFAM's job is to make sure the other thirty-five states and Union Territories follow.

Why one bill isn't enough

India is federal. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution divides legislative power between Parliament (Union List), state legislatures (State List), and either (Concurrent List). Walking, cycling, footpaths, cycle tracks, urban streets, municipal corporations, and non-motorised vehicles all sit on the State List — Entries 5, 13, and 18. The Concurrent List does not contain a single entry that names roads, traffic, urban planning, or public health. A bill that tells municipal corporations how wide to build footpaths is ultra vires if Parliament passes it — the Seventh Schedule would need to be amended for that to change.

The National Urban Transport Policy 2014 admits this on its own text:

National Urban Transport Policy 2014 · Section 14.3.1

"There is no legislation at present that covers the requirements of Urban Transport comprehensively."

National Urban Transport Policy 2014 · Section 14.3.2

"A comprehensive Urban Transport Act to cover all aspects of Urban Transport is essential. The Government of India will enact such legislation."

— Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India

That was twelve years ago. No such Act has been introduced in Parliament since. The Framework CFAM should advocate for is precisely the law the policy itself promised.

So is there still a Bill?

Yes — actually more than one.

The Framework is not a way to avoid legislation. It is the way to enable it. The State List barrier means Parliament cannot pass a single Bill that directly regulates streets — but each stream produces or strengthens a specific legislative instrument. The Framework is a Bill suite.

CFAM's actual ask is for roughly four central legislative actions, 36 state-level rule notifications, and a multiplying set of state Active Mobility Acts. That is a larger legislative ask than a single Bill would have been — and that's the strength of the Framework, not a weakness.

The four constitutional pathways

If a single, unitary national law on streets is not constitutionally possible, what is? There are four distinct constitutional hooks. The strongest strategy combines Paths 1, 2, and 4 as the operating Framework, with Path 3 in reserve.

Path 1 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 — Concurrent List Entry 35

This is the strongest existing path and the one the Supreme Court has effectively activated. The Motor Vehicles Act is a central law passed under Concurrent List Entry 35. Strictly speaking, that entry only covers motorised vehicles. But Sections 138(1A) and 210D already reach pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles by delegating rule-making to state governments — Parliament sets the enabling structure, the states fill in the details.

On 7 October 2025, the Supreme Court in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1189) directed every state and union territory to formulate and notify rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210D within six months. The compliance deadline expired around 7 April 2026; the matter was relisted on 7 May 2026 for compliance review. The Court has activated this Path. The Framework operationalises it across the country.

Path 2 Centrally Sponsored Scheme — Concurrent List Entry 20 + Article 282

Concurrent List Entry 20 ("economic and social planning") is a broad hook for central framework legislation — used to support NREGA 2005, NFSA 2013, and the Right to Education Act 2009. Article 282 authorises the Union to make grants for any public purpose.

The natural instrument is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme — a centrally funded programme distributing money to states only if they meet specific conditions. India already has scores of these (Swachh Bharat, AMRUT, Smart Cities, the Accessible India Campaign). A National Active Mobility Mission would fund footpaths and cycle tracks, but only if states appoint coordinators, build measurable kilometres, and meet auditable targets.

The United States has used this conditional-funding architecture for thirty years: 23 U.S.C. § 217 makes federal highway money conditional on each state DOT funding up to two Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator positions. The EU has just made the same transition with TEN-T Regulation 2024/1679. India is the outlier.

Path 3 State consent — Article 252

Article 252 of the Constitution allows Parliament to legislate on a State List subject if two or more state legislatures pass enabling resolutions. The Act then applies to those states, and others can opt in later. Real precedents: Wildlife Protection Act 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976.

This is the constitutionally cleanest path — but it has a sting. Article 252(2) says that once a state consents and the law is enacted, the state can never amend or repeal that law on its own. Only Parliament can. Consenting states permanently lose unilateral flexibility on that subject.

For an active mobility law, Karnataka would be the natural anchor (it already has a state-level draft bill). But the political cost is real. Path 3 is the strongest in legal terms and the weakest in political terms. It's held in reserve.

Path 4 Disability rights treaty obligation — Article 253 + UN Convention

This is potentially the cleanest constitutional path of the four, and it hides in plain sight because most active mobility advocacy treats walking, cycling, and disability rights as separate causes.

Article 253 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to make any law "for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country." This article is a complete override of the Seventh Schedule for treaty implementation. India ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 1 October 2007. To implement this treaty obligation, Parliament passed the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

The Act contains a direct, unqualified statutory hook for streets:

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 · Section 41(1)(c)

"The appropriate Government shall take suitable measures to provide … accessible roads to address mobility necessary for persons with disabilities."

On 8 November 2024, the Supreme Court in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2024 INSC 858) anchored accessibility in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, struck down Rule 15(1) of the RPwD Rules 2017 as ultra vires, and directed the Union to frame mandatory non-negotiable accessibility rules under Section 40 within three months. The Union is now under a Supreme Court mandamus to issue binding national rules on accessibility — and Section 41(1)(c) puts "accessible roads" squarely within scope.

Two important architectural points about Stream 4: Section 40 is a Central rule-making function under the RPwD Act, so the mandamus runs only against the Union. The Court's directions to states are enforcement-only — under Sections 44, 45, 46 and 89 of the RPwD Act. State-level RPwD rule-making is a parallel power under Section 62, and a state Active Mobility Act under Stream 3 can layer state-specific accessibility standards on top of the central §40 floor.

For active mobility advocacy, the implication is direct: footpaths, kerb ramps, tactile paving, and accessible signal crossings are already a binding national obligation. A Framework built around universal access does not create a new central power — it operationalises one Parliament already exercises. And because Article 253 explicitly overrides the State List for treaty implementation, the federalism objection that constrains the other three paths disappears entirely on this one.

Karnataka has just shown it works

On 12 May 2026, the Karnataka Transport Department notified the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 2026 (No. TD 147 TDO 2025, Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary Part IVA No. 368), expressly under Sections 138 and 210D of the Motor Vehicles Act — the precise hooks the Supreme Court directed. The Rules insert two new chapters into the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules 1989:

• Complete-streets vocabulary — four-tier road hierarchy with statutory speed limits (Arterial / Sub-Arterial / Collector 40 kmph / Local Street 20 kmph, shared-space and NMT priority); Vulnerable Road Users defined to include pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly, and persons with disabilities
• Footpath protection — minimum 1.5 m clear width, 2.5 m in school zones; reduction allowed "only as a last resort and only upon recording reasons in writing" after parking removal, carriageway rationalisation, and utility relocation
• Pedestrian crossings every 150 m maximum in urban areas; grade-separation restricted to wide, high-speed roads only
• Mandatory accessibility — tactile paving, kerb ramps, Braille on handrails, pelican signals with audible devices, exclusive pedestrian phase timing for children, elderly, and persons with disabilities
• Mandatory cycle tracks on roads above 30 kmph with physical segregation; statutory 1.5 m overtaking distance for cyclists; "dooring" protection; no motor vehicle driving or parking on footpaths or cycle tracks
• Institutional architecture — Public Works Department and Urban Local Bodies as Implementing Agency; Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority as Monitoring Agency for Bengaluru; District Road Safety Committees elsewhere
• Mandatory cross-reference to the Harmonised Guidelines for Universal Accessibility 2021, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, and Indian Roads Congress codes (IRC:103, IRC:11-2015, IRC:70, IRC:119, IRC:SP:84/87/99)
• Penalties up to Rs 1 lakh on implementing agencies where non-compliance causes death or grievous injury; motorist penalties starting at Rs 1,000; statutory grievance redressal with 30-day resolution and appeal to the Chief Secretary

This is by some distance the most comprehensive complete-streets statute anywhere in India. It is the proof-of-concept for the Framework: Path 1 (Motor Vehicles Act delegation) combined with Path 4 (RPwD Act cross-reference) combined with state-level institutional design. Replicating this across India is what the Framework asks for.

The Karnataka Active Mobility Bill 2022 is not superseded by the Rules. They are complementary. The Rules cover design standards, monitoring, and enforcement. The Bill is still needed for what the 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. CFAM's petition to table the Bill in the 2026 Monsoon Session is still the right ask — for the residual thirty per cent the Rules don't deliver.

Karnataka is alone. Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Maharashtra, Gujarat, and the other thirty-five jurisdictions have notified nothing under Sections 138(1A) or 210D. Karnataka is now the working template for the rest of India.

The Framework, in one table

The single sentence designed to be unattackable by a senior Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs official:

The MoHUA-proof pitch

"This is not a duplicate of the National Urban Transport Policy. It is the comprehensive Urban Transport Act that Section 14.3.2 of the policy itself promised — supplying the statutory teeth (binding Motor Vehicles Act rules mandated by the Supreme Court's October 2025 order, conditional central funding, a statutory state Active Mobility Coordinator, auditable outcomes, and operational integration with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 accessibility mandate) without which twelve years of policy have left pedestrian deaths doubling from 10.4% to 20.4% of all road fatalities, only fifteen of India's fifty-three million-plus cities with statutory transport authorities, and Karnataka alone as the first state to notify Vulnerable Road User rules."

Every claim in that sentence is sourced to the counterparty's own documents.

What CFAM is doing

1. Republishing the Karnataka MV Rules 2026 as a working template. Plain-English explainer on cfam.in. Circulated to civil-society partners in every state. Framed as "what compliance with the Supreme Court's October 2025 order looks like when a state actually does it."
2. Launching a state-by-state compliance tracker page on cfam.in. One row per state. Three columns: notified, draft circulating, date. Updated as new notifications appear.
3. Re-pitching the National Active Mobility Bill as the National Active Mobility Framework. Replacing "Bill" with "Framework" in site copy except where referring to specific state bills. The four-instrument architecture is the substantive ask.
4. Engaging MoRTH first, MoHUA second. The Motor Vehicles Act is the active statutory hook; MoRTH owns it. MoHUA is co-owner for the Centrally Sponsored Scheme but should not be the gatekeeping venue — pitching MoHUA first invites the "we already have NUTP" rebuff.
5. Aligning with disability rights advocacy. Universal access — where the same kerb ramp helps a wheelchair user, a parent with a stroller, an elderly person, and a delivery worker — gives the Framework constitutional cover, political resonance, and natural allies that walking and cycling alone do not yet command.
6. Holding a Public Interest Litigation as a contingent lever, not a primary track. If the Supreme Court does not move S. Rajaseekaran compliance forward decisively or the states beyond Karnataka continue not to notify rules, a PIL is doctrinally available under the Vishaka / A.K. Chopra line. The framing must be careful: invoke Article 21 + Article 14 + RPwD Act §41(1)(c) + MV Act §138(1A) and §210D as the binding architecture, with the Stockholm Declaration on Road Safety 2020, the UN Decade of Action 2021-2030, SDG 3.6, SDG 11.2, and New Urban Agenda paragraphs 113 and 114(a) as interpretive aids — not as freestanding sources of binding directions.

What's still moving

• Supreme Court of India — post-7 May 2026 order in S. Rajaseekaran not yet located in primary sources. Outcome will determine whether the Court grants extensions, issues contempt notices, or takes over the framing itself.
• Karnataka Cabinet — status of the standalone Active Mobility Bill unchanged on the Directorate of Urban Land Transport page.
• Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs — whether the National Urban Transport Policy 2014 is being revised. This is the optimal advocacy window.
• Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities — Draft Accessibility Standards for the Transport and Mobility Sector published for consultation on 21 May 2025; still not gazette-notified fifteen months later.

Sources & method

This brief draws on five deep-research workflows (25–29 May 2026) totalling 528 multi-agent calls, 130 sources, and 116 adversarially verified claims. Load-bearing primary sources:

• The Constitution of India — Seventh Schedule (List I, II, III), Articles 252, 253, 282
• Supreme Court of India — S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1189 (7 October 2025); Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 858 (8 November 2024)
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 — Sections 40, 41, 44, 45, 89
• National Urban Transport Policy 2014 — Sections 14.3.1, 14.3.2, 11.6.1
• Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 2026 — Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary Part IVA No. 368, 12 May 2026
• US Code Title 23 Section 217; EU Regulation 2024/1679 (TEN-T)
• Supreme Court of India — Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999), Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UoI (1996) — doctrine for invoking international instruments alongside fundamental rights
• Stockholm Declaration on Road Safety 2020; UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/74/299; UN Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021-2030; New Urban Agenda (Habitat III, 2016) — paragraphs 113-114(a)
• Comptroller and Auditor General of India — 2024 Performance Audit, Karnataka, Chapter III on Accessibility

The detailed claim-by-claim verification logs are retained in the workflow run outputs that produced this brief.