- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sudhir Madan And Others v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This public interest litigation concerns the unchecked occupation of public roads, streets, footpaths, parks and other public spaces in Delhi by unauthorised hawkers and squatters. An affidavit dated 13-01-2006 was filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) updating the court on the constitution of Ward Vending Committees; ten committees in the central zone were still pending. The Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not adjudicate individual grievances and therefore sought to establish broad guidelines and require comprehensive schemes from the MCD and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) to regulate street vending in alignment with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether and to what extent hawkers and squatters can lawfully occupy public roads, footpaths, parks and other public spaces in light of citizens’ fundamental right to free passage.
- The guiding principles for demarcating “hawking” and “no-hawking” zones within Delhi.
- How the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004 should be implemented by MCD and NDMC in formulating their respective schemes.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that public thoroughfares and amenities exist primarily for the general population, whose fundamental right to movement cannot be compromised by street vendors. While acknowledging the economic significance of hawking, the Court held that any regulatory scheme must:
- Prioritise citizens' rights to unobstructed use of public spaces.
- Define clear hawking and no-hawking zones, considering traffic flow, pedestrian convenience and cleanliness.
- Specify permissible goods for sale to maintain hygiene and order.
- Reflect contemporary urban developments, including the expansion of the Metro system and road-widening projects.
- Avoid populist measures in favour of practical, enforceable regulations consistent with the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004.
The Court cautioned municipal authorities against discriminatory enforcement and warned that partial or selective action would attract contempt jurisdiction.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The MCD and NDMC must:
- Frame and file comprehensive vending schemes, with reasons for each provision, within eight weeks; draft schemes are due in court on or before 30-04-2006 and will be considered on 05-05-2006.
- Constitute all remaining Ward Vending Committees within two weeks.
- Remove all unauthorised hawkers, squatters and occupants from public roads, streets, footpaths and parks within two weeks, filing a compliance report within four weeks.
- Ensure non-discriminatory enforcement; failure will expose officials to contempt proceedings.
- NDMC must pass and communicate an order on IA No. 204 of 2005 in CA No. 560 of 1998 within two weeks.
Implications: The immediate effect is the compulsory clearance of unauthorised vendors and the development of structured schemes regulating street vending in Delhi. The order reinforces citizens’ right to unrestricted public spaces but does not create new precedent; it primarily directs administrative compliance with existing policy.
Order
1. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi affirmed on 13-1-2006. Information, which was required, has been given, but we find that all the Ward Vending Committees have not yet been constituted, particularly in the central zone. Ten committees are yet to be constituted, which, we are told, will be constituted within two weeks.
2. It is not possible for this Court to look into each individual grievance, neither will it be practicable for this Court to issue directions in each case. This being a public interest litigation, we are only required to provide the guidelines consistent with public interest so that the roads, streets, footpaths, parks, etc. are not illegally occupied by unauthorised hawkers, squatters, etc.
3. We have also to keep in mind the principle that the right to use the pathway, footpath, etc. is that of the citizens. No hawker can claim a right to defeat the rights of other citizens. The hawkers are large in number, but the population of citizens is many times more than that of hawkers and, therefore, the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be put in jeopardy by permitting hawkers and squatters to block roads, footpaths, public parks, etc. etc. The authority, which frames a scheme, has to keep this paramount consideration in mind. Consistent with the rights of citizens, if it is possible to provide any space to hawkers, squatters, etc. that may be done consistent with the policy to be framed by the authority concerned.
4. The authority will have to consider on what principles hawking and no-hawking zones have to be carved out. It will also have to consider in which zones no hawking activity can be permitted. It will also have to consider what nature of goods can be sold by hawkers, squatters, etc. so that cleanliness is maintained and at the same time free flow of traffic and movement of pedestrians is not obstructed.
5. We do not wish to give the authorities an impression that the streets, lanes, footpaths and the parks exist only for hawkers. The reality is that they exist for the benefit of the ordinary people living in those localities. The concept of starting hawking business early in the morning or late in the evening may also have to be reconsidered in the light of recent developments in the city, particularly with the advent of Metro and progress made in widening roads for use by the ordinary citizens. We cannot lose sight of the fact that street hawkers have also increased in number. All these concerns are important and the authority framing the scheme must keep these considerations in mind.
6. The scheme need not be populist in its appeal, but must be practical and consistent with the rights of citizens, who have a fundamental right to use the roads, parks and other public conveniences provided by the State. These and other such considerations must permeate the thinking of the authorities, who have been vested with power to frame a scheme. We, therefore, call upon Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as the New Delhi Municipal Council to frame a scheme keeping in mind the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004. The National Policy has to be implemented keeping in view the conditions that exist in different parts of the city and no uniform formula can be applied.
7. We call upon MCD and NDMC to file their schemes with details within a period of eight weeks from today. The schemes must contain the reasons for the provisions made therein so that there can be a useful discussion and all persons interested may be able to participate with their own constructive suggestions.
8. We are informed that NDMC had framed a scheme in the year 1989, but that may require revision in the light of changed circumstances and the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004. NDMC may also in the light of these developments submit their scheme with such modifications as they propose to make, if any. In any event, a comprehensive document should be placed before us containing the scheme, the manner of implementation of the scheme and the practical difficulties faced by NDMC in implementing these schemes.
9. While we undertake this exercise, we direct the authorities to see to it that those persons, who are carrying on hawking activities or who are squatting on public land without any authority, even in accordance with the present day scheme in force, are removed forthwith. This includes unauthorised hawking, squatting on public streets, footpaths and public parks, including playgrounds. We direct the Delhi Administration to take steps immediately in collaboration with MCD and NDMC with necessary assistance from Delhi Police to clear the roads, streets, footpaths, parks, etc. by unauthorised occupants/squatters/hawkers. We expect that in the next two weeks steps will be taken by the authorities concerned to remove the unauthorised hawkers, squatters, occupants from the public roads, streets, footpaths, parks, etc. Let a compliance report be submitted to this Court within four weeks from today.
10. We also wish to emphasise the fact that in doing so the authorities must not discriminate, and if unauthorised persons have to be removed, there shall be no exception and all unauthorised persons must be removed. If we find cases where the authorities have acted not in an impartial manner, we shall take action against such authorities under our contempt jurisdiction.
11. The draft schemes formulated by MCD and NDMC shall be filed in Court on or before 30-4-2006. Parties, who intend to make their submissions before us on the schemes may obtain copies from counsel appearing on behalf of MCD and NDMC. Let these matters come up on 5-5-2006.
IA No. 204 of 2005 in CA No. 560 of 1998
12. Copy of the application be given to the counsel appearing on behalf of NDMC. NDMC is directed to pass an appropriate order after considering the application of the applicant and communicate the same to her forthwith within two weeks from today.
Court Masters
Alert