Street vending is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(g) but must be regulated to balance individual rights with public interests, requiring designated vending zones and lawful procedures.

ORDER :

SANJAY KAROL J.

1. 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 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 so