How should cities reclaim footpaths?

Why in the News?

Following the Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to walk on safe, obstruction-free footpaths as a Fundamental Right, Bengaluru Development Minister directed a 10-day “Safe Footpath” drive across the five corporations under the Greater Bengaluru Authority, removing thousands of street vendors from pavements. The drive enforced the pedestrian right the court recognised but bypassed the process the Street Vendors Act, 2014 requires before vendors can be removed, exposing a gap between enforcing one right and protecting another.

Why was the Street Vendors Act, 2014 enacted?

1. Vending recognised as legitimate occupation: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that street vending is a legitimate occupation protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, regulable in the public interest but not prohibitable outright.
2. Response to arbitrary evictions: Municipal bodies and police had a recurring pattern of evicting vendors without notice, reducing years of livelihood to rubble overnight, which the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 was enacted to end.
3. Not an anti-encroachment law: The Act does not give vendors an unrestricted right over public space, nor does it function as an anti-encroachment statute.
4. Balancing two rights: It balances the public’s right to safe, obstruction-free footpaths against a vendor’s right to livelihood, laying down who can vend, where they can vend, and when they can be removed or relocated.

What process must cities follow before removing vendors?

1. Town Vending Committee (TVC): Every city must constitute a TVC comprising officials, police, planning authorities, resident representatives and street vendors, who must hold at least 40% of the seats, with representation for women and other marginalised communities.
2. Survey requirement: Once constituted, the TVC must survey all existing vendors before authorities decide who can continue vending and under what conditions.
3. Protection during the process: No vendor can be evicted or relocated until the survey is completed and Certificates of Vending are issued.
4. Certificate of Vending: The certificate gives official permission to vend at a specified location under specified conditions and confers no ownership over public land.
5. Removal remains conditional, not barred: The Act does not prohibit the removal of vendors; it only requires that removal follow this sequence.

Why has Bengaluru’s drive come under scrutiny?

1. No Town Vending Committee in place: Bengaluru’s corporations began removing vendors before constituting a TVC, the body the Act requires to identify vending and no-vending zones.
2. Relocation promised only after the fact: Karnataka Chief Minister promised relocation only after the drive had already removed vendors.
3. Sequence reversed: The government acted on the Supreme Court’s recognition of the pedestrian’s right to walk without first completing the survey and certification process the Street Vendors Act requires.
4. Foundation of the law is balance: The Act’s foundation is the balance between the two rights, not the primacy of one over the other.

Conclusion

The Street Vendors Act, 2014, requires cities to constitute a Town Vending Committee, survey existing vendors and issue Certificates of Vending before removal or relocation, precisely to prevent the arbitrary evictions that predate the law. Bengaluru’s drive enforced the Supreme Court’s recognition of the pedestrian’s right to walk without first completing this sequence, showing that reclaiming footpaths lawfully requires following the Act’s process rather than invoking one right to bypass the other.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2023] “The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially.” Comment.

Linkage: The PYQ examines the effectiveness of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in urban governance, particularly their institutional capacity, devolution of powers, and ability to manage public spaces and civic services. The article highlights that effective implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 depends on empowered municipal institutions such as Town Vending Committees (TVCs). Bengaluru’s failure to constitute a TVC before undertaking evictions reflects the governance and institutional weaknesses of ULBs