High Court Invalidates Arbitrary Eviction of Street Vendors: A Landmark Judgment Upholding Rights and Dignity
- ByAdmin --
- 31 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a significant ruling, the High Court has invalidated the arbitrary eviction of street vendors, reinforcing the constitutional protections and legal frameworks designed to safeguard the rights of this vulnerable section of society. This decision marks a crucial step in balancing urban development with social justice, emphasizing that eviction without due process and rehabilitation violates fundamental rights.
Background
Street vendors form an essential part of the informal economy in many urban centers, providing affordable goods and services while contributing to the city’s vibrancy and economy. However, they often face the threat of forced evictions and harassment by local authorities, citing reasons such as urban beautification, traffic regulation, and sanitation.
The arbitrary eviction of street vendors has been a persistent issue, frequently resulting in loss of livelihood without adequate notice or rehabilitation, raising concerns about violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
Legal Framework Protecting Street Vendors
- The Constitution of India
- Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
- Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted by courts to include the right to livelihood.
- Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
- The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
- Enacted to protect the rights of street vendors, regulate street vending, and prevent harassment and arbitrary eviction.
- Mandates the formation of Town Vending Committees to oversee vending zones and grant licenses.
- Requires that eviction only occur after due notice and alternative arrangements.
- Enacted to protect the rights of street vendors, regulate street vending, and prevent harassment and arbitrary eviction.
- The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Where applicable)
- Provides some regulatory oversight on land use but does not override protections guaranteed to street vendors under the 2014 Act.
- Provides some regulatory oversight on land use but does not override protections guaranteed to street vendors under the 2014 Act.
The High Court’s Judgment: Key Highlights
The High Court’s ruling came in response to a public interest litigation challenging the eviction of hundreds of street vendors without prior notice or rehabilitation measures. The court observed:
- Violation of Due Process: Evictions carried out without following statutory procedure violate principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards embedded in the 2014 Street Vendors Act.
- Right to Livelihood: The court reiterated that livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and cannot be arbitrarily taken away.
- Necessity of Rehabilitation: Authorities must ensure alternative vending zones or reasonable rehabilitation plans before displacing street vendors.
- Prohibition of Harassment: Law enforcement agencies should refrain from using excessive force or intimidation tactics during eviction drives.
- Role of Town Vending Committees: The court underscored the importance of these committees in managing vending spaces and called for their active involvement.
Implications of the Judgment
- Legal Precedent
- The judgment reinforces that eviction of street vendors without statutory compliance is unlawful.
- Courts are likely to take a stricter view of arbitrary evictions in other jurisdictions, promoting adherence to the 2014 Act.
- The judgment reinforces that eviction of street vendors without statutory compliance is unlawful.
- Empowerment of Street Vendors
- Vendors now have stronger legal backing to challenge unlawful eviction.
- Encourages formal registration and participation in Town Vending Committees to secure rights.
- Vendors now have stronger legal backing to challenge unlawful eviction.
- Urban Governance
- Authorities are urged to adopt inclusive and consultative approaches in urban planning.
- Calls for balancing developmental objectives with socio-economic rights of marginalized groups.
- Authorities are urged to adopt inclusive and consultative approaches in urban planning.
Challenges and the Way Forward
While the judgment is a progressive step, challenges remain:
- Implementation Gap: Many municipalities struggle with effective implementation of the 2014 Act, leading to continued evictions.
- Lack of Awareness: Vendors often remain unaware of their legal rights or fear reprisal.
- Need for Infrastructure: Adequate vending zones with necessary amenities remain scarce.
- Policy Coordination: Greater coordination between urban development, police, and social welfare departments is needed.
Conclusion
The High Court’s invalidation of arbitrary eviction of street vendors is a landmark affirmation of the constitutional right to livelihood and due process. It sends a clear message that social justice must underpin urban governance, ensuring that street vendors—who form the backbone of informal urban economies—are protected against unlawful displacement.
This judgment not only upholds the legal framework under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, but also strengthens the enforcement of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, laying a foundation for more inclusive and humane urban development policies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments