Summary
In an appeal by a traders' association seeking removal of street-vendor encroachments in Manimajra, Chandigarh, the Court stressed that street vending is protected by Article 19(1)(g) subject to reasonable restrictions, and that the State must balance vendors' livelihood with other residents' rights. Noting the Municipal Corporation's removal of unauthorised vendors, it directed affidavits on steps to help displaced vendors move into vending zones and on pending applications, and listed the matter for further orders.
Issues
- How the right of street vendors to carry on their trade is to be balanced against the rights of residents and the public to unobstructed public spaces.
- What the State must do to support vendors displaced by encroachment removal where lawful vending zones exist.
Provisions considered
- Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6), Constitution of IndiaStreet vending is an occupation protected by Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest under Article 19(6); the right does not extend to setting up shop anywhere and claiming public space. (¶¶ 2, 3, 9.2)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaHeavy-handed crackdowns and removal without warning destroy livelihoods and offend the dignity protected by Article 21; regulation rather than indiscriminate eviction is required. (¶ 4)
- Sections 2(d), 2(l), 2(n), 12, 14, 17, 21, 27, 28, 33 and 37, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014Set out as the framework for vending rights under a certificate of vending, no-vending zones, vending plans, protection from harassment, penalties for contravention and bye-law-making power, against which the authorities' actions were to be assessed. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Clauses 2, 4, 5 and 8, Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Bye Laws, 2018Prescribe what registered vendors may not do (such as obstructing traffic or erecting structures), their responsibilities and graded penalties; the respondent's actions had to conform to them. (¶ 8)
Held
- Street vendors are not units to be removed or relocated at will; street vending is a protected occupation, but the right is subject to reasonable restrictions and does not permit permanent occupation of public spaces at the cost of other residents. The State must mediate these competing interests through regulation such as vending zones, transparent licensing and consultation, rather than blanket restrictions or indiscriminate eviction. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
- It is not enough for authorities merely to point to the existence of vending zones; where vendors are displaced through encroachment drives and lawful vending zones are available, the State has a duty to actively support their transition to those zones, failing which removal risks becoming punitive and disproportionate. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Because removal disrupts a vendor's customer base, the State should undertake awareness drives to inform residents that vendors have been shifted to designated areas. (¶ 13)
- Taking note of the Commissioner's affidavit that unauthorised vendors had been removed, challans issued and only licensed essential service providers and mobile vendors permitted, the Court sought further affidavits on regularisation and relocation efforts and on the status of pending applications before the High Court and the Grievance Redressal Committee. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 14)
Result
Directions issued: affidavits to be filed within two weeks on information about vending zones, relocation support and awareness drives, and on the status of pending applications; matter listed on 27.04.2026 for further orders. The High Court judgment had earlier been stayed on 04.08.2025.