High Court of Delhi Protects Authorized Street Vendors from Arbitrary Eviction Pending Formal Vending Zones - 2026-03-17

Seeking Dignity in Vending: The Struggle for Space in Delhi Cantonment

The High Court of Delhi has delivered a significant ruling safeguarding the livelihood of street vendors operating within the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB) area. In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the court clarified that vendors holding temporary Certificates of Vending (CoV) issued by the Town Vending Committee (TVC) cannot be subjected to arbitrary eviction so long as they comply with the stipulated terms and conditions.

The petition, brought by Ashok Kumar Verma and others, challenged the ongoing harassment and summary eviction by police and municipal officials, arguing that such actions directly contradicted the official resolutions of the DCB’s own Town Vending Committee.

A Cycle of Harassment and Redress

The displacement of vendors in the Delhi Cantonment area has been a persistent legal issue. Following a resolution by the TVC on April 2, 2025, 235 vendors were recognized as authorized, and provisional CoVs were issued in May 2025. Despite this recognition, vendors reported frequent interference by police and local officials, culminating in the seizure of their goods.

This is not the first time the court has stepped in. In October 2025 ( Ravi Kumar & Ors. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. ), the court previously reprimanded authorities for adopting "shortcut methods" of seizing goods instead of utilizing the formal legal mechanisms available to the TVC for relocation or cancellation of certificates.

The Court’s Verdict: Due Process Over Arbitrary Eviction

During the hearing before Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, the Court examined the most recent minutes of the TVC meeting dated January 15, 2026. The resolution explicitly stated that holders of temporary vending certificates should not be evicted until vending zones were finalized.

The Court held that the petitioners' grievances were satisfied by this official resolution. By directing that the vendors be allowed to operate peacefully subject to the conditions of their CoVs, the Court effectively curbed the practice of summary police crackdowns, reinforcing that any action against vendors must be routed through the established legal framework of the TVC.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the necessity of adherence to due process:

• "The TVC has decided not to evict the Petitioners till the vending zones are finalised, so long as they adhere to the terms of the temporary vending certificates."
• "In such an eventuality [of traffic difficulties], it was open for the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police ('DCP) to request TVC either to relocate the petitioners or cancel the provisional COVs."
• "In the meantime, we direct that the petitioners be permitted to vend in accordance with the COVs; however, it shall be open for the respondent/police authority to regulate the traffic and other issues without seizing the goods of petitioners."
• "If there is any violation by the Petitioners, the TVC is at liberty to take action in accordance with law."

Implications for the Future

The decision serves as a vital precedent for street vendors operating in municipal zones. By mandating that administrative resolutions—like those of the Town Vending Committee—must be respected by law enforcement, the Court has provided a shield against the "shortcut" of arbitrary seizures. While the court acknowledged the concerns of the police regarding traffic management, it emphasized that such problems must be solved through relocation plans approved by the TVC, rather than through the infringement of the fundamental right to livelihood. Future actions regarding these vendors must now exclusively follow the procedures outlined in the latest DCB resolutions.