Supreme Court of India
MALKIT SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 341
- Decided
- 9 April 2026
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The Court held that the State may impose reasonable restrictions on street vending only if it simultaneously provides designated vending zones and adequate support for displaced vendors, otherwise such evictions violate the constitutional right to livelihood.
Summary
Malkit Singh, president of the Manimajara Vyaapar Mandal, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of fruit‑vendors, hawkers and other street sellers who were encroaching on public paths, roads and property in Chandigarh, alleging nuisance and traffic hazards. The High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether evicting vendors without providing alternative vending zones infringes the constitutional right to livelihood under Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 21, and whether the State’s actions complied with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and its bylaws. It held that while the State may impose reasonable restrictions, it must designate vending zones, ensure transparent licensing, and actively assist displaced vendors in relocating, otherwise the measures become punitive and violate dignity. Noting the municipal corporation’s issuance of challans and removal of illegal vendors, the Court directed the authorities to file detailed affidavits, clarify vending‑zone information, conduct awareness drives, and support vendors’ transition. The appeal was allowed with directions for compliance and a further hearing scheduled.
Issues considered
- The removal of street vendors encroaching on public spaces without providing alternative vending zones violates the constitutional right to livelihood under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
- Whether the State’s restrictions on street vending are reasonable under Article 19(6) and the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
- Whether the actions of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh comply with the provisions and bylaws of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
- The extent of the State’s duty to facilitate relocation and support for vendors displaced by eviction.
- Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was legally erroneous.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 19(6), s. Article 21
- Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014s. 12, s. 14, s. 17, s. 21, s. 27, s. 28, s. 2(d), s. 2(l), s. 33, s. 37
- The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Bye‑Laws 2018s. 10, s. 2(d), s. 2(r), s. 2(z), s. 4, s. 5, s. 8, s. 9
Headnote
Issue for Consideration The appellant herein sought removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Street vendors – Encroachment on public paths, roads and public property – The instant appellant had filed the writ petition seeking removal of of
Subjects
Street VendorsRights of street vendorsEncroachmentNuisancesSurvivalArticle 19(1)(g) of Constitution of IndiaArticle 19(6) of Constitution of IndiaReasonable restrictionsLivelihoodsVending zonesSocial protectionArbitrary evictionCompeting rights
Judgment
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 550 : 2026 INSC 341
Malkit Singh and Anr.
v.
State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2026)
09 April 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant herein sought removal of encroachments on public
paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri
vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating
nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use of paths.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street Vendors
(Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)
Act, 2014 – Street vendors – Encroachment on public paths,
roads and public property – The instant appellant had filed the
writ petition seeking removal of of encroachments on public
paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri
vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors – The High
Court dismissed the petition – Correctness:
Held: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh has
filed an affidavit – It records that a certain number of challans
have been issued and certain unauthorised vendors have been
removed from the area – It is also submitted that all illegal street
vendors have been removed and only those who possessed the
license and are in the category of essential service providers or
mobile vendors have been permitted – Still further, it is submitted
that officers of the Enforcement Wing shall be continually deployed
in the area to ensure no encroachment takes place in the area –
However, any action by the State that disrupts this livelihood must
therefore be carried out with care, fairness, and a clear sense
of responsibility – If vending zones have already been identified
and designated, it is not enough for the authorities to simply point
to their existence – Removing vendors from familiar locations,
even for legitimate public reasons such as easing congestion or
* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 551
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
improving urban order, creates an immediate need for support –
Let the State clearly clarify the existing information available at the
defined vending zones which in any event have to be acceptable
to all concerned – When vendors are removed without any real
help in relocating, the hardship caused is out of proportion to the
regulatory goal, and such an exercise risks becoming punitive
rather than orderly – The State has a duty to actively support their
transition to these zones in accordance with the law – The State is
required to undertake efforts to let residents know that the shops
have been shifted, i.e., have awareness drives that would divert
the customers to the designated area – Direction issued to file an
affidavit with relevant details. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]
Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street vending –
Reasonable restrictions by the State:
Held: The Constitution of India, through Art. 19(1)(g), guarantees
every citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business – Street vending falls squarely within
this protection – At the same time, this right is not absolute – Art.
19(6) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the
interests of the general public – This balance between individual
freedom and collective welfare lies at the heart of the constitutional
scheme. [Para 2]
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Street venders – Encroachment
on public places – Balancing competing rights of street
vendors and other residents:
Held: The Constitution does not permit placing one group’s rights
over others; instead, it mandates that the State should mediate
competing interests – Mediating competing interests requires
a constitutional approach which takes the form of regulation of
rights rather than blanket restrictions or indiscriminate eviction –
Processes to be adopted in such an approach include clearly
identified vending zones, transparent licensing processes, and
regular consultations with vendor groups and resident welfare
associations – Taking the diametrically opposite approach of
heavy-handed crackdowns, removal without warning or using
heavy machineries to remove semi-permanent structures is in
a way, destruction of livelihoods offensive to the spirit of dignity
u/Art.21. [Paras 3 and 4]
552 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 51 :
(1985) 3 SCC 545; S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [2025] 10
S.C.R. 311 : (2026) 2 SCC 207; Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal
Committee [1989] 3 SCR 1038 : (1989) 4 SCC 155; Ahmedabad
Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [1996] Supp. 7
SCR 548 : (1997) 11 SCC 121; Sudhir Madan v. MCD [2007] 7
SCR 1 : (2009) 17 SCC 332; Gainda Ram v. MCD [2010] 12 SCR
996 : (2010) 10 SCC 715; Saudan Singh v. NDMC [1992] 2 SCR
243 : (1992) 2 SCC 458; Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v.
Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai [2013] 9 SCR 742 : (2014) 1
SCC 490 – referred to.
List of Acts
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act, 2014; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Street Vendors; Rights of street vendors; Encroachment; Nuisances;
Survival; Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India; Article 19(6) of
Constitution of India; Reasonable restrictions; Livelihoods; Vending
zones; Social protection; Arbitrary eviction; Competing rights.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2025 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 10327 of 2022.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Mallika Prabhakar, Gorang Goyal, Navraj Guron, Anmol Ratan
Dhillon.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Anant Vijay Palli, Sr. Adv., Krishna Kant Dubey, Bhuvan Kapoor,
Varun Chugh, Santosh Ramdurg, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal,
Shubham Bhalla, Ms. Ragini Sharma, Ms. Neha Verma, Alex Noel
Dass, Chiranjeev Sugandh, Himansh Trehan, Jasbik Singh, Vishal
Arun Mishra, Anish Venkatesh Bindlish, Bhavya Sharma.
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 553
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave granted.
PRELUDE
2. To conceive of street vendors as units that can be removed or
relocated at the ‘drop of a hat’ would be an incorrect use of power,
either judicial or administrative. They are not solely economic units;
they are people trying to earn an honest living in cities that often
offer them few, if any, alternatives. For many, street vending is not
a choice but a necessity that allows them to support their families,
educate children, and survive in an increasingly expensive urban
environment.
The Constitution of India, through Article 19(1)(g), guarantees
every citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade, or business. Street vending falls squarely within this
protection. At the same time, this right is not absolute. Article 19(6)
permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests
of the general public. This balance between individual freedom and
collective welfare lies at the heart of the constitutional scheme.
3. Problems arise when this balance is lost. Unregulated street vending
can spill into residential neighbourhoods, footpaths, and roads, making
everyday life harder for others. They should be able to walk safely
on pavements, access their homes without obstruction, and enjoy
public spaces without permanent encroachments. Public land being
occupied indefinitely, without oversight, creates a sense of unfairness
and fuels conflict. Recognising the right of vendors under Article 19
to carry out their trade cannot be equated to a right to set up shops
anywhere and then claim ownership over that public space. If such
a situation is countenanced both the rule of law and urban planning
policies would go ‘out the window’. The Constitution does not permit
placing one group’s rights over others; instead, it mandates that the
State should mediate competing interests.
4. Mediating competing interests requires a constitutional approach
which takes the form of regulation of rights rather than blanket
554 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
restrictions or indiscriminate eviction. Processes to be adopted in
such an approach include clearly identified vending zones, transparent
licensing processes, and regular consultations with vendor groups
and resident welfare associations. Taking the diametrically opposite
approach of heavy-handed crackdowns, removal without warning or
using heavy machineries to remove semi-permanent structures is
in a way, destruction of livelihoods offensive to the spirit of dignity
under Article 21. Ultimately, the task is balancing competing rights of
street vendors and other residents, and it is not asking the question
whether street vendors belong in cities, since they clearly do.
THE APPEAL
5. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 23rd May
2025, passed in CWP No. 10327 of 2022, passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The instant appellant had filed
the writ petition in his capacity as the President of the Manimajara
Vyaapar Mandal seeking, essentially, the
“removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and
public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors,
hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating
nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use of paths...”
6. The High Court dismissed the petition, imposing cost on the
associations represented by the instant appellant to the tune of Rs.
50,000 each.
“17. Before we close the case, we are of the firm view that
the street vendors and their families, who are depositing
fee with the Municipal Corporation for the certificate
being given to them for vending, also need to provided
some social protection. The amount so recovered by the
Municipal Corporation should, therefore, be used for their
benefits alone and should be kept in a separate budget
head, and as a suitable insurance for them, including
medical facilities, should be provided by the Municipal
Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh, and Rules in this regard
should be framed.
18. At the same time, this Court also notices that the
Street Vending Act and the benefits which it meant to
give to the genuine street vendors is also being misused
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 555
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
by a certain set of persons, and even the shopkeepers
themselves setup hawkers’ stall in front of their shops
selling their own items, At the same time, a certain group
of people use wrongful means to get their name entered
in the survey registers and illegally get sites registered for
hawkers purposely. Such misuse of law deserves to be
dealt with by an iron hand a will to execute the provisions
of law with integrity and dutifully.”
As such, the appeal is before us.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
7. At the outset we must take note of the provisions of The Street
Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)
Act, 20141. This is a comprehensive legislation dealing with street
vendors, their regulation, rights and obligations, dispute resolution,
the constitution of the town vending committee, penal provisions
and prevention of harassment etc. The relevant Sections thereof
are reproduced below for ready reference:
“2(d) “mobile vendors” means street vendors who carry out
vending activities in designated area by moving from one
place to another place vending their goods and services;
... ... ...
2(l) “street vendor” means a person engaged in vending
of articles, goods, wares, food items or merchandise of
everyday use or offering services to the general public,
in a street, lane, sidewalk, footpath, pavement, public
park or any other public place or private area, from a
temporary built up structure or by moving from place to
place and includes hawker, peddler, squatter and all other
synonymous terms which may be local or region specific;
and the words “street vending” with their grammatical
variations and cognate expressions, shall be construed
accordingly;
…
1 SVA
556 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2(n) “vending zone” means an area or a place or a
location designated as such by the local authority, on the
recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, for
the specific use by street vendors for street vending and
includes footpath, side walk, pavement, embankment,
portions of a street, waiting area for public or any such place
considered suitable for vending activities and providing
services to the general public.
12. Rights of street vendors.—(1) Every street vendor shall
have the right to carry on the business of street vending
activities in accordance with the terms and conditions
mentioned in the certificate of vending. (2) Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1), where any area or
space, as the case may be, has been earmarked as no-
vending zone, no street vendor shall carry out any vending
activities in that zone.
14. Duty of street vendors.—Where a street vendor
occupies space on a time sharing basis, he shall remove
his goods and wares every day at the end of the time-
sharing period allowed to him.
17. Payment of maintenance charges.—Every street
vendor shall pay such periodic maintenance charges for
the civic amenities and facilities provided in the vending
zones as may be determined by the local authority.
21. Plan for street vending.—(1) Every local authority
shall, in consultation with the planning authority and on the
recommendations of the Town Vending Committee, once
in every five years, prepare a plan to promote the vocation
of street vendors covering the matters contained in the
First Schedule. (2) The plan for street vending prepared
by the local authority shall be submitted to the appropriate
Government for approval and that Government shall, before
notifying the plan, determine the norms applicable to the
street vendors.
27. Prevention of harassment by police and other
authorities.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, no street vendor who
carries on the street vending activities in accordance with
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 557
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
the terms and conditions of his certificate of vending shall
be prevented from exercising such rights by any person
or police or any other authority exercising p
28. Penalty for contraventions.—If any street vendor—
(a) indulges in vending activities without a certificate of
vending;
(b) contravenes the terms of certificate of vending; or
(c) contravenes any other terms and conditions specified
for the purpose of regulating street vending under this
Act or any rules or schemes made thereunder, he shall
be liable to a penalty for each such offence which may
extend up to rupees two thousand as may be determined
by the local authority.
33. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this
Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in consistent
there in contained in any other law for the time being in
force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any
law other than this Act.”
8. Section 37 of SVA grants the power to local authorities to make
byelaws in furtherance of the objectives of the Act. The respondent
accordingly notified byelaws termed The Street Vendors (Protection of
Livelihood and Regulation of - Street Vending) Municipal Corporation,
Chandigarh Bye Laws 2018 2 for the Municipal Corporation,
Chandigarh. Since the present appeal pertains to the actions taken
by the respondent and with the same needing to be in conformity
with these byelaws, relevant provisions are as follows:
“2(d) ‘Essential Service Providers means those street
vendors who are providing essential services within the
vicinity e.g. cobbler, milk/bread egg seller, tea vendor,
cycle/ rickshaw repairer, dhobi (ironing), barber, Tandoor,
Chole Bhature, Kulche Chhole and Parantha, fruits and
vegetables and the florists sitting outside the religious
places like Mandir and Gurudwara3;
2 bye-laws
3 as amended in 2020
558 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2(r) “Public Purpose” includes in the context of the Act (i)
widening of streets, lanes (ii) shifting the alignment of roads,
streets, lanes; (iii) erecting flyovers with or without clover
leaves and slip down reads: (iv) erecting of underpasses,
(v) development of land owned by public authorities for
some public projects; (vi) laying of water, storm water or
sewer lines; (vii) erecting intermediate pumping stations for
the services: (viii) any project related with public transport
like BRTS, metro etc; (ix) erection of economically weaker
section (EWS) housing; (x) creation, of parks, gardens
and recreational area; (xi) conservation of any eco system
resource in that area and (xii) any other development work
taken by the local authority, the beneficiary of which will
be the community at last.
2(z) ““Vending Zone” means an area or a place or a
location designated as such by the local authority, on
the recommendation of the Town Vending Committee,
for the specific use by street vendors for street vending
and includes footpath, sidewalk, pavement, embankment,
portions of a street, waiting area for public or any such place
considered suitable for vending activities and providing
services to general public.
2(ac) “License” means Certificate of Vending;
4. A Registered Street Vendor, for any of these vending
zones, shall not.- (a) obstruct or interfere with vehicle,
bicycle or pedestrian traffic or their safety:
(b) obstruct or interfere with doorways, entrances, fire
doors or emergency exits adjacent to the street:
(c) obstruct or interfere with any utilities like water supply,
sewerage, telephone, electricity etc or similar installation;
(d) obstruct or interfere with any other structure, signboards,
display units, city work or operations, on or adjacent to
the street;
(e) sell any prohibited goods /pirated or services or
merchandise etc as per rules, regulations and notifications
issued by any statutory authority from time to time;
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 559
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
(f) occupy more space than allotted by Municipal
Corporation Chandigarh; TVC;
(g) sell goods or service or merchandise between 6 A.M.-
10 A.M. as specified by the
(h) dispose garbage in an un-segregated manner and in
any place other than specific place, which is identified by
the local authority:
(i) sell their goods or services or merchandise after expiry
of the license;
(j) use loud speakers, megaphones, sound system or any
other amplification equipment;
(k) allow any person other than family to vend from
his vending place or sublet the place, allotted by local
authority;
(l) use any unauthorized and prohibited mechanism for
energy requirement in public place,
crowded area for cooking and heating purposes example
open tandoor and domestic LPG;
(m) construct any permanent or temporary structures on
allotted space;
(n) use banned polythene bags of any kind.
5. Responsibility of registered Street Vendors. A
Registered Street Vendor, for any of these vending
zones, shall-
(a) do vending on the place as specified in the vending
certificate by him/herself;
(b) comply with all conditions specified in the certificate;
(c) prominently display the ID card and certificate of
vending at all times;
(d) ensure that he/she whose name has been mentioned
including immediate family member in the vending
certificate remains present at the vending place during
vending hours;
560 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(e) keep the vending place clean and in good conditions
all times;
(f) comply with all the safety and sanitary requirements
of local authority;
(g) comply with all the requirements of the Food Adulteration
Act or any other act as applicable;
(h) produce the certificate of vending when demanded
by the government authorities including Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh, Chandigarh Police and Traffic
Police:
(i) follow all the requirements of this bye-laws and conditions
mentioned in the vending certificate.
(j) clear and remove goods, wares and articles everyday
at the end of vending hours from the site, no storage at
vending site is permitted in any manner;
(k) use recommended fire safety devices/equipment’s in
case of registered food street vendors for heating purposes
by using commercial LPG (less than 5 Kg. Cylinder)
connections and also in case of other vendors selling
combustible products;
(l) use tandoor only in case of community tandoor set
up in residential area with arrangements of fire safety
equipment’s and away from residential building (private
and government both);
(m) abide by all the rules, notifications and regulations
issued by any statutory authorities from time to time.”
Clause 8 of these byelaws postulates the penalty which is to be paid
by the registered street vendor for violation of the provisions of the
byelaws or SVA itself. The first three violations entail a monetary
penalty, fourth results in suspension of the license for three months,
fifth leads to cancellation. If a person carries out unauthorised vending,
the fine given is Rs 10,000.
9. At this stage, it would be apposite to consider various pronouncements
dealing with street vendors, hawkers and other allied issues. This
question has engaged judicial attention repeatedly, right from
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 561
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.4 to S. Rajaseekaran v.
Union of India5. Some of the pronouncements are discussed below:
9.1 In Olga Tellis (supra), the Constitution Bench held in the context
of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, that no person has
a right to encroach on footpaths or pavements by erecting
a structure or otherwise since they are reserved for a public
purpose.
9.2 In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee6, the
Constitution Bench, observed that no person can claim a right
to hawk or squat at a particular place on a permanent basis.
Kuldip Singh J., in the same judgment held that hawking or
street vending was a profession/trade protected under Article
19(1)(g) and would therefore necessarily be subject to Article
19(6).
9.3 In Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab
Khan7, a co-ordinate Bench discussed the duties owed by a
Municipal Corporation towards its citizens, while recognising
twenty years ago that rural-urban migration is a reality that
has to be contended with and that encroachment ‘undoubtedly
obstructs and upsets planned development, ecology and
sanitation. Public property needs to be preserved and protected.’.
Inter-alia they are responsible for (a) prevent encroachment
on pavements and footpaths; (b) provide free flow of traffic
both vehicular and pedestrian; and (c) taking steps to remove
encroachments as soon as they are noticed.
9.4 In Sudhir Madan v. MCD8 this Court recognised that hawkers
however large in number cannot compromise the rights of
other citizens. The administration of the area has to provide
them with the opportunity to earn their livelihood in a way that
is consistent with the rights vested in other citizens.
4 (1985) 3 SCC 545
5 (2026) 2 SCC 207
6 (1989) 4 SCC 155
7 (1997) 11 SCC 121
8 (2009) 17 SCC 332
562 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
9.5 In Gainda Ram v. MCD 9, it was held with reference to the
earlier decision in Saudan Singh v. NDMC10 that when the
Court is concerned with a matter dealing with the livelihood
of large number of families, it should adopt a compassionate
approach so as to ensure that the parties who were in that
case hawkers/squatters, are not denied ‘their daily bread at
the altar of technicalities’.
9.6 In Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corpn.,
Greater Mumbai11, this Court shed light on the fact that street
vendors/hawkers do not always receive the best or even
acceptable treatment from the authorities of the State despite
the important role they play in the ordinary lives of the ordinary
citizens and everyday city economy. It was acknowledged
that this Court has through various decisions struggled to find
“workable solution”, balancing the competing rights alluded to
above.
CONSIDERATION
10. This Court issued notice and granted a stay on the operation
of the impugned judgment on 4th August 2025. By Order dated
19th November 2025, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
Chandigarh, was asked to file their personal affidavit in response
to the grievance raised by the appellant. Mr. Amit Kumar, holder
of the said position, filed his affidavit on 3rd December 2025. We
have perused the said affidavit. It records that a certain number of
challans have been issued and certain unauthorised vendors have
been removed from the area. To be precise, a total of 1024 challans
stood issued between 1st August and 30th November 2025. It is also
submitted that all illegal street vendors have been removed and
only those who possessed the license and are in the category of
essential service providers or mobile vendors have been permitted.
Still further, it is submitted that officers of the Enforcement Wing
shall be continually deployed in the area to ensure no encroachment
takes place in the area.
9 (2010) 10 SCC 715
10 (1992) 2 SCC 458
11 (2014) 1 SCC 490
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 563
Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
11. While the efforts carried out thus far have apparently borne results
and are therefore appreciable, it is a matter of concern for us whether
all relevant efforts have been made to regularize such hitherto
illegal vendors, including those who are not before us, by granting
them space in designated vending zones so as to ensure minimum
disruption to their livelihood in the long term. Any action by the State
that disrupts this livelihood must therefore be carried out with care,
fairness, and a clear sense of responsibility.
If vending zones have already been identified and designated, it
is not enough for the authorities to simply point to their existence.
Removing vendors from familiar locations, even for legitimate public
reasons such as easing congestion or improving urban order, creates
an immediate need for support. Vending zones are meant to provide
a lawful and workable alternative, and that purpose is lost if displaced
vendors are left uncertain, uninformed, or unable to access these
spaces in practice. Let the State clearly clarify the existing information
available at the defined vending zones which in any event have to
be acceptable to all concerned.
12. This kind of assistance is not an act of generosity. It reflects a basic
respect for the right to earn a living and to carry on a lawful occupation.
When vendors are removed without any real help in relocating, the
hardship caused is out of proportion to the regulatory goal, and such
an exercise risks becoming punitive rather than orderly.
In essence, if vendors are displaced through encroachment drives and
lawful vending zones are available, the State has a duty to actively
support their transition to these zones in accordance with the law.
Doing so upholds both the spirit of regulation and the human reality
of those whose lives depend on street vending.
13. It is also to be recognized that forcible shifting or removal of
encroachments, while it may be entirely in accordance with law,
disrupts the customer base that comes with the shop being located
at a particular area. The State is required to undertake efforts to let
residents know that the shops have been shifted, i.e., have awareness
drives that would divert the customers to the designated area. Let an
affidavit be filed with the relevant details, within two weeks of this order.
14. Let the respondent(s) file an affidavit also indicating the number of
applications filed and the current status in terms of our order dated
564 [2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
17th December 2025, insofar as the status of the cases pending
before the High Court, as also the Grievance Redressal Committee.
15. Let the matter appear in the list on 27th April 2026 for further
consideration and passing of orders on the affidavits filed in
compliance of this Order.
Result of the case: Directions issued.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Street Vendors"Sign in to search