Street Vending Regulation Must Balance Encroachment Control with Livelihood Protection; COVID-Era Expansion of Essential Service Providers Quashed

1. Introduction

In MALKIT SINGH v. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH, 2026 INSC 663, the Supreme Court of India considered the regulation of street vending in Chandigarh, particularly the relocation of licensed vendors, the functioning of designated vending zones, cancellation of vending licences, and enforcement against unauthorised encroachments.

The appellants, Malkit Singh and another, were before the Supreme Court against the State of U.T. Chandigarh and others. The matter involved a broader civic issue: how a city administration should remove encroachments and regulate street vending without destroying the livelihood of vendors who depend on street vending for survival.

The Court was assisted by Mr. Anant Vijay Palli, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae. The Court also interacted with senior officials of the Chandigarh administration, including the Chairperson of the Town Vending Committee, the Chairperson of the GRDRC, and the Secretary, Local Government & Home, Chandigarh.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court issued a set of detailed directions to ensure that street vending regulation in Chandigarh is not reduced merely to issuing challans or collecting penalties. The Court emphasised that the State must act with fairness, responsibility, and sensitivity to livelihood concerns.

The Court directed, among other things, that:

  • Recently identified vending zones must be made operational at the earliest.
  • Licensed vendors must be shifted to designated vending zones with adequate administrative support.
  • Vending zones must have public amenities such as toilets, drinking water and proper maintenance.
  • Road signage in commonly used languages must guide the public to vending zones.
  • Advertisements must be issued in print and electronic media informing the public about vending zones and their timings.
  • Smart cards for vendors should be issued swiftly, and vendor details must be shared with jurisdictional police stations and district administration.
  • CCTV cameras must be installed within six months for safety and security.
  • A helpline for vendors and buyers should be considered.
  • Pending applications and appeals must be decided within 60 days; fresh applications and appeals should ordinarily be decided within 30 days, subject to the Street Vendors Act and bye-laws.

Significantly, the Court quashed the Notification dated 17 July 2020, which had expanded the definition of “Essential Service Providers” under the Chandigarh Street Vendors Bye-Laws, 2018. The Court accepted that the 2020 amendment was introduced during the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19 and had outlived its purpose.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment text does not cite any external judicial precedent or previous case law. Therefore, there are no prior case titles in the provided judgment that influenced the Court’s reasoning in the conventional precedential sense.

However, the Court relied heavily on its own previous orders in the same matter, especially the orders dated 9 April 2026 and 5 May 2026. In the 9 April order, the Court had already recognised that any State action must ensure minimum disruption of livelihood and must be accompanied by fairness and responsibility. The 5 May order involved direct interaction with senior Chandigarh officials and consideration of the amicus curiae’s note.

Thus, while no reported precedent was cited, the Court developed its reasoning through continuous monitoring of compliance, administrative affidavits, and the statutory framework governing street vending.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning is based on a balance between two competing public interests:

  • Keeping public streets and markets free from unauthorised encroachments; and
  • Protecting the livelihood of street vendors through lawful relocation and regulation.

The Court made it clear that anti-encroachment action cannot be merely punitive. Issuing challans may generate revenue, but it does not by itself solve the problem of illegal vending or ensure rehabilitation. Therefore, the administration must focus on actual relocation, functional vending zones, public awareness, and continuous monitoring.

The Court also recognised that relocation affects not only vendors but also customers and local residents. A vendor builds a customer base at a particular location, and sudden relocation can disrupt both livelihood and consumer access. Therefore, the State must support vendors during relocation.

On the issue of cancelled licences, the Court noted that many vendors had not approached the appellate authority. This raised concerns that such vendors may continue vending illegally due to lack of alternative employment. Hence, the Court directed timely disposal of pending applications and appeals.

Regarding the 17 July 2020 Notification, the Court accepted that the expanded definition of “Essential Service Providers” was introduced during the COVID-19 national disaster. Since the circumstances had changed, the expanded definition and extended vending time were no longer justified. The Court therefore quashed the notification and restored the earlier legal position.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

This order is important for urban governance and street vending regulation. It reinforces that the administration cannot treat street vendors merely as encroachers. If vendors are licensed or eligible under the statutory framework, relocation must be humane, organised and practical.

The judgment may influence future cases involving municipal regulation of street vending by emphasising:

  • Result-oriented compliance rather than paper compliance;
  • Functional vending zones with real amenities;
  • Use of technology such as smart cards and CCTV;
  • Time-bound disposal of vendor grievances and appeals;
  • Protection of livelihood while maintaining urban order.

The quashing of the 2020 Notification also sends a broader message: emergency measures introduced during extraordinary situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, cannot continue indefinitely once their purpose has expired.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Town Vending Committee

A Town Vending Committee is a statutory body under the Street Vendors Act responsible for identifying vendors, issuing certificates, and regulating vending areas.

GRDRC

The GRDRC refers to the Grievance Dispute Redressal Cell. It deals with complaints and disputes raised by street vendors regarding vending rights, relocation, cancellation, or other related issues.

Essential Service Providers

Essential Service Providers are vendors who provide basic daily services, such as cobblers, milk or bread sellers, tea vendors, barbers, and similar service providers. The 2020 amendment had expanded this category, but the Supreme Court quashed that expansion because it was linked to COVID-era conditions and had outlived its purpose.

Smart Cards for Vendors

Smart cards are identity cards containing vendor details and site information. They help verify whether a vendor is authorised and whether the vendor is operating from the allotted place.

Status Quo Ante

“Status quo ante” means restoring the position that existed before a particular change. By quashing the 2020 Notification, the Court restored the earlier definition and rules that existed before the COVID-era amendment.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in MALKIT SINGH v. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH lays down an important governance principle: regulation of street vending must be lawful, humane, and practical. The State may remove encroachments, but it must also protect the livelihood of vendors through proper relocation, functioning vending zones, amenities, and timely grievance redressal.

The judgment is also significant because it quashes the COVID-era expansion of “Essential Service Providers,” holding that exceptional measures cannot continue after their purpose has ended. Overall, the order strengthens a balanced model of urban regulation: clean and accessible public spaces, without sacrificing the dignity and livelihood of street vendors.