Delhi High Court Mandates Removal of Unauthorized Vendors Around Anand Vihar ISBT, Prioritizes Public Access and Urban Beautification

Introduction

In a significant ruling aimed at alleviating severe congestion and enhancing public infrastructure, the Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to remove all encroachments and unauthorized vending structures around the Anand Vihar Interstate Bus Terminal (ISBT). The Division Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, passed this order on January 22, 2026, in the long-pending writ petition filed by the Mahila Hawker Welfare Association against the District Magistrate, Shahdra, and other respondents, including the MCD. The court permitted only 105 vendors, identified as eligible through a recent survey by the Town Vending Committee (TVC), to continue operations using mobile carts, strictly prohibiting permanent structures. This decision underscores the balance between protecting legitimate street vendors' livelihoods under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and ensuring free public movement in high-traffic areas. The order also mandates a comprehensive beautification plan, involving the Public Works Department (PWD), to transform the area into a more passenger-friendly zone with dedicated spaces for eateries, sanitation, and shops.

The ruling comes after nearly a decade of litigation, where interim protections had allowed vending under certain conditions, but escalating congestion—exacerbated by permanent setups blocking pedestrian pathways—prompted the court to intervene decisively. News reports from sources like Bar and Bench and LiveLaw highlight the court's emphasis on decongestion, noting that the area serves lakhs of daily passengers via buses, trains, and the metro, making it a critical transport hub connecting Delhi to Uttar Pradesh and beyond.

Case Background

The writ petition, W.P.(C) 5617/2016, was instituted in 2016 by the Mahila Hawker Welfare Association, representing over 100 women hawkers affiliated with the National Hawkers Federation. The association sought directions to allow its members—listed in Annexure P-1 of the petition, comprising 114 vendors—to vend peacefully near the Anand Vihar Bus Stand without eviction threats. The petitioners claimed they had been operating from these spots for years and invoked Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act, 2014, which prohibits evictions until a survey by the local Town Vending Committee is completed.

The legal dispute arose amid broader tensions between urban authorities' efforts to regulate public spaces and vendors' rights to livelihood. Anand Vihar ISBT, a bustling terminal handling inter-state buses, adjacent railway and metro stations, and nearby Kaushambi Bus Stand, had become notoriously congested. Vendors had encroached on pedestrian pathways, service roads, and foot overbridges, hindering passenger movement and violating zoning norms.

Upon the petition's filing, the court issued notice on June 10, 2016, granting interim protection to the listed 114 street vendors against coercive action by the MCD (then East Delhi Municipal Corporation). However, this protection was explicitly limited: it excluded vending on foot overbridges, roads, or footpaths, aligning with the Act's intent to regulate rather than enable obstructions. Subsequent orders refined these boundaries. On August 3, 2016, the court reiterated the exclusion for foot overbridge hawkers.

The timeline saw further complications. In January 2017, a parallel Division Bench order in a suo motu case on air pollution (W.P.(C) 1346/2015) directed the MCD to clear encroachments for road repairs and traffic flow. This clashed with the interim protection here, leading to a recall application by the MCD on January 31, 2017. The court clarified that protection did not extend to encroachments on the 60-foot main road, 26-foot service road, 5-foot or 6-foot footpaths, or foot overbridges, as depicted in a rough sketch submitted by the petitioners showing "PWD ki Jagah Dukandaar" (PWD land used by shopkeepers). The MCD was freed to act against such violations.

In March 2017, an application from the National Hawkers Association added 126 members, with challans (fines) issued to 72. The court extended similar protections to these 72, conditional on compliance with prior orders. Over the years, the matter was adjourned multiple times, with interim stays continuing but growing scrutiny on non-compliance. By January 2026, the TVC survey—mandated under the Act—was completed, identifying only 105 eligible vendors issued provisional Certificates of Vending (COVs). This survey, informed by MCD submissions and photographic evidence of permanent structures, shifted the case toward final resolution.

The core legal questions revolved around: (1) Interpreting Section 3 of the Street Vendors Act to determine eviction timelines post-survey; (2) Reconciling vendors' Article 19(1)(g) right to practice occupation with public interest under Article 21 (right to life and movement); and (3) Enforcing vending zones in "non-hawking areas" like main roads, as per MCD policy.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by advocates including Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, argued primarily for livelihood protection. They contended that their members had vended at Anand Vihar for years, qualifying as legitimate street vendors under the 2014 Act. Reliance was placed on the initial 2016 interim order and Section 3, which bars evictions pending survey and scheme formulation. The association submitted a list of 114 members and, later, evidence like challans to prove long-standing operations. They denied obstructing roads or footpaths, claiming operations on PWD land, and sought permanent vending rights without displacement. In recent hearings, counsel admitted to some permanent structures but emphasized COV issuance to association members, urging minimal disruption.

On the respondents' side, the MCD, through Standing Counsel Mr. Rajan Tyagi and others, pushed for decongestion. They highlighted the TVC survey's findings: only 105 vendors met eligibility for provisional COVs, categorized as "mobile vendors" without permanent setups. Photographic evidence presented in court depicted "outlet-like small shops" covering pedestrian pathways, causing "enormous congestion" for passengers, tourists, and vehicles. The MCD invoked its policy defining main roads like those near ISBT as "non-hawking areas," prohibiting squatting. They argued that ongoing encroachments violated prior court clarifications (2016-2017 orders) and broader directives, such as the 2017 air pollution case, impeding traffic and public safety. The GNCTD panel counsel supported this, stressing the area's role as a vital transport node serving lakhs daily. Factual points included the evolution from temporary hawking to permanent encroachments, and legal emphasis on the Act's regulatory framework, not unchecked occupation.

Both sides agreed on the need for regulation but diverged on scope: petitioners sought expansive protection, while respondents prioritized public access and enforcement post-survey.

Legal Analysis

The court's reasoning centered on harmonizing the Street Vendors Act, 2014, with public welfare imperatives. Enacted to protect vulnerable livelihoods while regulating vending, the Act's Section 3 prohibits evictions until a TVC survey identifies eligible vendors and designates zones. The bench referenced an early precedent: the Delhi High Court's August 20, 2014, order in W.P.(C) No. 4303/2014 (National Association of Street Vendors of India v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation), which stayed evictions pending TVC formation and survey—principles echoed in the 2016 interim order here. This precedent was pivotal, as it established that protections are temporary and conditional, not absolute rights to encroach.

The judges distinguished between legitimate mobile vending and impermissible permanent structures, noting COV conditions explicitly bar fixed outlets and require mobility in designated zones. They applied Article 21, emphasizing "free space for movement of the public" as integral to the right to life, especially in high-footfall areas like Anand Vihar. Congestion was framed as a societal harm, encroaching on pedestrians and transport users, akin to violations in environmental and traffic cases.

No specific IPC sections were invoked, but the analysis drew on administrative law principles: MCD's duty to enforce zoning under municipal bylaws, balanced against vendors' rights. The court clarified distinctions—e.g., street vending vs. squatting on prohibited areas (roads, footpaths)—and rejected blanket protections post-survey. Precedents like the 2017 air pollution order were integrated to show cumulative judicial push against encroachments. The ruling sets a framework: surveys enable targeted protections, but non-compliance (e.g., permanent builds) forfeits rights, promoting organized urban spaces.

This approach avoids overreach, ensuring the Act regulates rather than legalizes disorder, with implications for similar disputes in congested metros.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with pointed observations underscoring the need for balanced urban governance. Key excerpts include:

• On the survey's finality: "Upon conclusion of the said survey, it has been ascertained that out of all the vendors vending at the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area, there are only 105 vendors who have a provisional Certificate of Vending (hereinafter, 'COV') for temporary vending."

• Highlighting non-compliance: "Clearly, the hawkers at the Anand Vihar Bus Stand area are not adhering to the conditions of the COVs issued to them. Moreover, any main road of this nature is a non-hawking area in terms of the policy of the MCD."

• Emphasizing public interest: "The ISBT Anand Vihar Terminal renders an extremely crucial essential service area for passengers who use the said bus terminal. Lakhs of passengers, as also the Indian Railways, DMRC operate from the said area and hence, the area sees a large footfall on a daily basis."

• Directing removal with safeguards: "The hawkers deserve to be removed and only the 105 hawkers, as recognized during the survey, should be permitted to use mobile vends for selling their wares in an allocated manner. No permanent structure can be allowed to be created by the 105 recognized vendors as well."

• Vision for development: "The entire area deserves to be properly re-planned, laid out, landscaped and tiled. As part of this process, some shops, cafes, resting areas, sanitation facilities, etc., ought to be created for the passengers in a manner so as to not impede their free movement."

These quotes, drawn verbatim from the January 22, 2026, order, encapsulate the bench's rationale, blending empathy for vendors with firm enforcement.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with comprehensive directions, modifying all prior interim orders. Primarily, the MCD, in coordination with the local Station House Officer (SHO) or Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), must remove all vendors and encroachments. Vendors are granted five to six days to clear their wares, with MCD to notify by January 30, 2026; removal operations commence the weekend of January 31, 2026. No obstructions are permitted during this process.

Only the 105 vendors listed in Annexure A-1—those holding provisional COVs from the TVC survey—are allowed to resume vending via mobile carts in allocated spots, guided by the MCD's Assistant Commissioner. Permanent structures are strictly banned, enforcing the Act's mobility requirement. Other survey participants eligible but without COVs may apply if certified.

Additionally, the MCD must collaborate with an architect (suggested: Ms. Sabita Sahoo from PWD) to draft a beautification plan by March 10, 2026, including service roads for easy alightment, landscaped spaces, tiled walkways, eateries, sanitation facilities, and shops—without impeding movement. The PWD is to assist, with the plan filed in court electronically and in hard copy. Compliance hearing is set for March 30, 2026.

The implications are multifaceted. Practically, it promises decongested access for Anand Vihar's millions of users, reducing accident risks and improving commuter experience. For vendors, it safeguards 105 livelihoods while weeding out violators, potentially inspiring organized vending zones elsewhere. Legally, it reinforces the Street Vendors Act as a tool for regulation, not impunity, influencing future cases on urban encroachments (e.g., in markets or stations). By mandating beautification, the court advances sustainable development, potentially setting a model for integrating vendor rights with public infrastructure. However, enforcement challenges—such as vendor resistance or MCD delays—could arise, underscoring the need for vigilant monitoring.

This decision, integrating MCD survey data and prior orders, marks a culmination of efforts to humanize urban spaces without compromising order.