Vendors and right to the streets

What happens when the city’s quest for cleanliness clashes with someone’s only means of survival? What happens when a government-driven anti-encroachment initiative violates the fundamental rights that extend to all citizens under the Constitution of India?

On May 21, officials of the NDMC demolished 150 shops and permanent structures erected by the street vendors in Delhi’s popular Sarojini Nagar market, at about 11 pm, without prior communication. The establishments were razed in a rushed and arbitrary exercise by State officials. This episode forms part of a larger anti-encroachment pattern unfolding across the country, aimed at clearing major public areas, including roads, with illegal structures operated by vendors. Similar drives have been launched by the MCD and DDA in the recent past.

Poverty, lack of education and paucity of employment opportunities in rural areas often push migrants to undertake street vending as a means of livelihood. They sometimes occupy space within existing markets and pavements, or move their carts from place to place, to sell their goods in areas with higher footfall.

Government authorities claim that unfettered public space access to vendors may lead to nuisance for pedestrians, poor drainage and traffic congestion. Anti-encroachment drives reclaim public lands, enhance pedestrian mobility and improve urban planning outcomes. However, there is a need to ensure that such anti-encroachment drives do not disproportionately impact the most vulnerable and marginalised communities within the society. Promulgating frameworks that regulate hawking while upholding India’s commitments under international instruments is thus pivotal.

Urban Local Bodies (ULB) are empowered to manage matters pertaining to occupation of public streets, right of way as well as traffic movement and pedestrian safety. In 1989, the Supreme Court recognised a requirement to balance the statutory powers of ULB with the constitutional rights of vendors under Article 19 (1) (g), which protects their right to livelihood. The right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (6), which may be imposed by ULB to limit the operation of street vendors. In 2004, India adopted the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors which was statutorily recognised through the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (2014 Act). The Act mandates the creation of Town Vending Committees (TVC) to demarcate areas, issue licences and address grievances from vendors. TVC comprises the ULB, vendors and other stakeholders such as RWAs
as members.

However, the 2014 Act has not been implemented in many states. Furthermore, dispute redressal mechanisms under the Act have not been operationalised, since they prevent employees of the appropriate government or ULB to be appointed as members of the dispute resolution process. Hence, in the event of any
dispute, street vendors have no option but to approach the courts and run from pillar to post for justice.

Control to collaboration

Despite extensive safeguards provided in Supreme Court decrees, the 2014 Act and urban planning regulations crafted by ULB, the friction between ULB and vendors continues to persist. Vendors continue to set up shops in non-vending areas, beyond vending hours, without licences, citing bureaucratic red-tapism. Conversely, State action is selective and causes sudden crackdowns without following due process. The net effect is congestion of the city as well as the loss of livelihood and destruction of goods. The problem of street vending and encroachment requires better urban planning and administrative-level operationalisation of existing legislative frameworks. A shift from “control” of streets to “collaboration” in planning for sharing urban spaces needs to be examined closely, as the public and the vendors are both rightful beneficiaries of public streets.

Vending zones should be located close to parks, community centres and public transport, as assigning them away from areas of high footfall hampers the overall safety of the area. The State should revisit the statutory ceiling on the number of vendors per area, adopting a dynamic quota-based e-registration system, wherein, short-term (daily), special occasion (seasonal, festival) and long-term (yearly, subject to renewal) licences can be issued. Shift-wise vending in the same zones, with appropriate security and municipal facilities, should be explored. Vendors should be reimagined as contributors to the ULB’s tax regime and overall economy. Policy calls should be taken based on GIS mapping, centralised database of eviction and relocation, and other ground-level data. At the macro level, design solutions that leverage existing infrastructure but also factor in functionality requirements stemming from vending in the larger plan for urban areas should be adopted.

(The writers are senior resident fellows at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the authors' own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.