Back
Protects 15 Bengaluru Street Vendors from Eviction Pending Survey
The on Thursday delivered two significant rulings that underscore the judiciary’s role in balancing administrative efficiency with constitutional protections. In the first, Justice B M Shyam Prasad granted to 15 street vendors operating around Bengaluru’s Krishna Raja (K.R.) Market, halting their eviction under the city’s ‘Safe Pedestrian Path Campaign’ until . In a separate matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of abetting the suicide of a 22-year-old nursing student, holding that the allegations established .
Interim Relief for Vendors Amid Survey Dispute
The vendors had approached the High Court challenging the eviction drive that began on across Bengaluru’s reorganised City Corporations. Their counsel, , argued that the petitioners were occupying open spaces near K.R. Market under vending licences issued in . Although those licences had expired, Kamath contended that the vendors were entitled to renewal or relocation under the , and the . He further submitted that eviction could not proceed unless their renewal applications were formally rejected, and that no could be constituted until a was completed.
Justice Shyam Prasad, after hearing the matter, directed that no be taken against the petitioners. However, the protection came with conditions: the vendors must not erect any temporary or permanent structures on their spots and must ensure that ambulances, fire engines, police vehicles, and other official vehicles can pass without obstruction. The court also directed the Joint Commissioner of the to clarify whether the petitioners could continue vending from their existing locations—as shown in photographs submitted before the court—and whether they were eligible to participate in the survey exercise that the civic body plans to conduct.
The court recorded the civic authorities’ submission that all street vending certificates had been withdrawn due to alleged fabrication, duplication, and misuse, and that fresh certificates would be issued after a proper survey. The authorities also maintained that the eviction exercise was aimed at clearing footpaths and open areas where vending hindered access for emergency vehicles. A temporary , they stated, would identify and specify vending areas in four constituencies around K.R. Market and relocate vendors who could not be permitted to continue at their existing locations.
Notably, the High Court observed that it had recognised a in a similar petition disposed of a day earlier, hinting at a consistent judicial approach to protect livelihood interests pending statutory compliance. The matter is now slated for further hearing on , leaving the vendors in a precarious but temporary safe zone.
No in Case
In the second ruling, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by Naveen G., a 33-year-old married man facing charges under Sections 75 (sexual harassment), 78 (stalking), and 108 () of the . The prosecution alleged that Naveen had repeatedly harassed the woman, followed her to her workplace, compelled her to accompany him on his motorcycle, and proposed marriage. When she refused, he allegedly contacted prospective grooms and falsely claimed to be in a relationship with her, sabotaging her marriage prospects. The woman attempted suicide on , but survived. After the intervention of Naveen’s family, her family initially withdrew the complaint. However, the harassment allegedly continued, and she died by suicide on .
The High Court, in refusing to quash the proceedings, noted that an offence of requires the presence of , which together leave the victim with no apparent option other than taking her own life. The court held that all three elements were present in the case, and that the allegations warranted a full-fledged trial. The decision reinforces the legal standard that even after a victim’s initial survival, persistent harassment can still constitute an abetment to suicide.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
Both rulings highlight the High Court’s active role in monitoring executive actions that affect . In the street vendor case, the court has effectively stalled an eviction drive that could have displaced hundreds of informal workers, insisting on adherence to the statutory framework of the 2014 Act and the 2020 Scheme. The conditional nature of the —barring structures and ensuring emergency access—reflects a careful balancing of the vendors’ livelihood rights against public safety and urban planning concerns.
For legal practitioners, the vendor judgment underscores the importance of completing the before any can function. The court’s direction to the Joint Commissioner to take a stand on the vendors’ spots signals that the judiciary is willing to examine the specifics of each vending location rather than approve blanket evictions.
The ruling, meanwhile, serves as a reminder that the courts will not readily interfere with criminal proceedings at the stage when the allegations disclose a case. The distinction between mere harassment and instigation leading to suicide remains fact-sensitive, but Justice Nagaprasanna’s articulation of the three elements——provides a clear framework for lower courts and prosecutors.
Conclusion
Together, these decisions showcase the ’s multifaceted docket, from protecting the marginalised street vendors against to ensuring that serious criminal allegations are tried on their merits. As the hearing approaches for the vendor case, all eyes will be on the Joint Commissioner’s report and the progress of the survey exercise. The outcome could set a precedent for thousands of other vendors facing similar eviction drives across Bengaluru. Meanwhile, Naveen G. must now face trial, with the High Court’s observations likely to shape the evidentiary standards for cases going forward.
