Beyond the Sidewalk: Balancing Livelihood and Law in Delhi

In a recent order, the High Court of Delhi has provided a balanced resolution for a street vendor struggling to maintain his livelihood amidst municipal objections. The judgment highlights the delicate intersection between the fundamental rights of marginalized vendors and the civic responsibilities of public space management.

The Struggle for a Spot

Rajnesh Singh, a street vendor operating from a site in Malviya Nagar, moved the High Court via a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Singh, who holds a Certificate of Vending (CoV) for the 'Food/Snack' category, argued that his ability to earn a living was being curtailed by municipal authorities. Crucially, the Petitioner emphasized his physical disability in his left upper limb—a fact supported by a medical certificate from the Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital—as a factor complicating his pursuit of alternative employment.

Civic Order vs. Right to Livelihood

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) countered the plea by highlighting the state of the vending site. Through photographic evidence, the MCD claimed the area was hindered by the placement of stools, blocked pedestrian movement, and poor cleanliness standards, asserting that garbage was not being managed. The legal question before the bench was clear: how should the court reconcile the statutory protection afforded to street vendors with the civic duty to keep public roads and pavements accessible?

A Conditional Green Light

The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, adopted a pragmatic approach. Drawing on precedents such as Mohd Badruddin v. MCD and Rihana v. MCD , the Court ruled that the strict 30-minute vending limit—Condition 11 of the CoV—could be relaxed, provided stringent benchmarks were met.

The Court permitted the Petitioner to continue operating, but set clear, mandatory guidelines: * Infrastructure : Only small or medium-sized gas cylinders are permitted to minimize space. * Spatial Compliance : The vendor must strictly remain within their designated zone, with no encroachment on pedestrian walkways. * Hygiene : The maintenance of a dustbin is mandatory, and the immediate area must be kept clean. * Prohibition : No permanent or temporary construction is allowed, and the permit is strictly non-transferable to prevent third-party sub-letting.

Key Observations

The Court emphasized the shared responsibility inherent in street vending, noting:

> "Clearly, there is a bounden obligation upon persons who are running vends to maintain cleanliness around the vend and not completely occupy the pavement or the road in front of the vend."

Addressing the conditional nature of the relief, the Court stated:

> "If there is any violation of the aforesaid conditions by the Petitioner and if the Petitioner puts up stools or does not keep the vending site clean, the MCD is at liberty to remove the vend of the Petitioner in accordance with law."

Furthermore, the Court kept the broader regulatory framework in mind, clarifying:

> "The above stated directions shall be subject to any plan which the Town Vending Committee–II may be coming up with in terms of Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014."

The Road Ahead

By ordering a surprise inspection by the MCD to ensure compliance, the High Court has signaled that while the law protects the livelihood of street vendors, this protection is not a license to obstruct public thoroughfares. This decision serves as a reminder to both municipal bodies and vendors that the "Protection of Livelihood" under the 2014 Act must coexist with the "Regulation of Street Vending" in urban spaces. The matter is currently listed for a report on compliance on March 22, 2026.