"Rights Need To Be Regulated": Delhi High Court Commences Hearing On Pleas Challenging Vires Of Street Vendors Act, 2014

Commencing hearing on a bunch of pleas challenging the vires of Street Vendors Act, 2014, the Delhi High Court on Saturday expressed its displeasure over the fact that there are no experts in the Town Vending Committee and that it would like to hear the challenge so as to ascertain the flaws and the fallacies in the implementation process.

Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh remarked that prima facie it seemed that something had to be said on the implementation of the Act.

"The way the Act has been implemented by now, including the constitution of Town Vending Committee, we haven't heard you but it prima facie appears something has to be said about it. Let's see if the law is not being properly implemented. We would like to tell all the concerned, Whether GNCTD, NDMC or municipal corporations, what appears to be the flaw, what are the fallacies, why it's not making any progress. What is the bottleneck, why this is held up, what is the hesitation from the last 7 years?," Justice Sanghi remarked orally.

"It's in that spirit we want to approach the issue. The idea was to see the jurisprudence on Hawking. First Sudan Singh judgment is the basis. It's the fundamental right, there is no doubt about it. So now that has to be regulated," he added.

During the course of hearing, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Ralli appearing for the petitioners began by taking the Court through the jurisprudence of enactment of the Act and the relevant judgments on the issue.

He started by referring to the 1989 judgment delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court titled "Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee."

In this case, it was held that the right to carry on trade or business on street pavements, if properly regulated, cannot be denied on the ground that the streets were meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. The Court however added that proper regulation is necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying out roads to facilitate traffic may be defeated.

Ralli also took the Court through other two judgments delivered subsequently which led the path towards implementation of the Street Vendors Act.

While the bench remarked that it agrees with the observations made in the 1989 judgment, the Court added that since the situation is evolving, the issue has to be considered after looking at the provisions and Scheme altogether.

"This is a dynamic situation. What we're looking at is the Act which came in 2014 and it's implementation. Delhi itself is expanding. There are more and more areas. There may be more people who may be allowed to vend. So we will have to see the Act and the scheme of the Act. First the plan has to come. You should know. And that was exactly said in the first judgement read by Ralli. Our thinking is also on the same lines," the Court added.

It also said that while the right to conduct a business is a fundamental right, it comes with reasonable restrictions and the vending exercise has to be done in a regular manner with proper licensing.

The Court suggested that the Scheme must be evolved after taking into consideration various aspects including safety, security, hygiene and roads etc.

"People who have been squatting should be required to disclose their assets and incomes. Even if he is an old squatter he should give the way so that the old site is allotted fairly. When you want to use a public way, when you want to impinge on somebody else's right, it has to be done with way of a license. It has to be done with the application of mind after seeing what the situation is. Whether at a particular place you can allow the vend. There should be a way to allocate. There should be a transparent process of those vends. It should be dynamic. You need to have a plan in every 5 years. Unfortunately,there is no plan for now. What is being seen is that it has become a self serving exercise," Justice Sanghi added.

Accordingly, the matter was posted for further hearing on November 18.

Yesterday, pulling up the Delhi Government over the implementation of the Act, the bench remarked "No more of politics, populism…Please get down to some real work."

The Bench also cautioned the authorities that the market associations can have a maximum representation of 40% on the TVC, in spirit of the 2014 Act.

The Bench however made it clear that it is not against vendors or squatting activities.

"Why are you saying this order is anti-anybody? We're only saying no illegal vending. Why should any illegal hawker be there in the first place?" Justice Singh said.

Justice Sanghi added,

"We're not against squatters; they are an essential part of our community. They are honest people, haven't taken law in their own hands, are not snatching chains. They're trying to make out a living for themselves and their families. They are our citizens; our people."

Case Title: New Delhi Traders Association v. GNCTD