Bombay High Court Green-Lights Street Vendor Elections, Ending Years of Legal Gridlock

The Bombay High Court on 23 March 2026 has cleared the way for the Town Vending Committee (TVC) to finally take shape, upholding the elections conducted on 29 August 2024 for representatives from the street vending community. In a detailed judgment that balances the livelihood rights of vendors with the pressing needs of public order, Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata refused to set aside the poll results despite multiple challenges to the underlying voter list.

From Infinite Petitions to a Single Outcome

For over a decade, various hawker unions have approached the Bombay High Court seeking inclusion of larger numbers of vendors in the electoral rolls for TVC elections. The batch of writ petitions, led by the Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union, principally contested the voter list that contained roughly 32,000 names. Petitioners argued that the 2014 survey, which had identified 99,435 acceptable applications out of 1,28,443, should have been the sole basis for the electorate. They further alleged that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (MCGM) had bypassed the mandatory publication of a preliminary voters’ list under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Street Vendors Rules, 2016.

The respondents, including the MCGM and the newly constituted TVC, countered that every application from the 2014 survey had undergone rigorous scrutiny. Only those vendors who satisfied the eligibility criteria laid down in the 2009 National Policy—proof of vending prior to 1 May 2014 and submission of valid documents—were included. They stressed that public notices had been issued, objections invited and considered, and that the Supreme Court had permitted the elections to proceed while staying only the declaration of results.

Arguments on Both Sides: Eligibility Versus Scrutiny

Senior counsel for the petitioners insisted that the protection granted in the 2017 Azad Hawkers Union judgment entitled all 99,435 vendors to automatic voting rights. They claimed that any further filtering amounted to an illegal truncation of the electorate. Additional pleas were made for including thousands of vendors who had received Letters of Recommendation under the PM SVANidhi scheme.

The MCGM emphasised that eligibility to vend is distinct from eligibility to vote for the TVC. The 2009 National Policy, which the Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly directed to be followed, mandates verification of each claim. Many applications were rejected simply for want of supporting documents—an approach the Court found both reasonable and lawful.

Legal Reasoning Anchored in Precedent and Practicality

The Court examined the sequence of events since 2017. After the Azad Hawkers judgment treated the 2014 survey as the statutory first survey under Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, the MCGM published draft lists in 2019 and 2021, invited objections, and ultimately arrived at the final figure of 32,415 eligible voters. Rule 15 requires publication three months before elections; while the timeline was not strictly observed, the Court held that the delay actually benefited petitioners by giving them more time to object.

Crucially, Justices Gadkari and Khata observed that permitting all 99,435 names to vote without scrutiny would dilute the very policy the courts have long mandated. At the same time, they acknowledged the legitimate grievances of vendors left out of the process and directed the soon-to-be-constituted TVC to conduct a fresh survey within the statutory framework.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court captured the frustrating cycle of litigation in evocative language:

> “Nearly nine years have elapsed since the judgment in Azad Hawkers Union… There is still neither a duly constituted Town Vending Committee nor a Scheme as contemplated by the Street Vendors Act.”

On the larger civic impact, the bench painted a vivid picture of everyday struggles faced by Mumbai residents:

> “Pedestrians are unable to use footpaths… Women, children and senior citizens bear the brunt… Emergency services, including fire brigades and ambulances, are unable to reach residential societies…”

Rejecting calls to restart the entire electoral process, the Court concluded:

> “To set aside the entire process of election at this juncture would only prolong the administrative vacuum for at least another three years.”

Final Orders and Practical Consequences

In its operative directions, the High Court:

• Declared the 29 August 2024 elections valid;
• Directed immediate declaration of results;
• Permitted the 99,435 vendors already found eligible to continue vending in accordance with earlier judgments;
• Ordered verification of the remaining 29,008 applications within four months;
• Mandated immediate action against illegal immigrants and unauthorised permanent structures;
• Refused to stay the judgment, citing repeated litigation as the primary cause of the twelve-year delay in implementing the Act.

The ruling effectively ends a long chapter of uncertainty. With the TVC now poised to be formally constituted, Mumbai’s street vendors and citizens alike may finally see the regulatory framework the Street Vendors Act promised more than a decade ago.