Community service is an appropriate corrective measure for police personnel found ill-treating disabled citizens.

The Petitioner, a tea vendor with a 78% locomotor disability holding a provisional Certificate of Vending (CoV), operated near ISBT Anand Vihar

During an eviction drive on February 4, 2026, Head Constable (HC) Ajay Kumar was filmed kicking the Petitioner's wares and ill-treating him

Upon viewing the video evidence, the Court found the officer's conduct "completely unacceptable" and directed him to perform one week of community service (07:00 AM to 07:00 PM) at the ISBT, specifically assisting disabled passengers, senior citizens, and children

The current proceedings concern the review of the status report regarding the officer’s service and the Petitioner’s application for an alternate vending site

1. Whether the physical ill-treatment of a disabled street vendor by police personnel warrants specific remedial measures or community service

2. Whether a disabled vendor with a provisional CoV can be allowed to continue vending at their current site pending a permanent redevelopment plan

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to issue directions for the protection of the Petitioner's rights

Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which mandates that vending activities be governed by the plan formulated by the Town Vending Committee (TVC)

The Court emphasized the principle that while police render services in strenuous circumstances, misbehaviour toward citizens—especially those with disabilities—is unpardonable

The Court observed that an apology from the police officer was an "insufficient reproach" for kicking the wares of a disabled vendor

By ordering the officer to assist disabled passengers, the Court sought to ensure accountability and professional sensitization

Regarding the vending issue, the Court balanced the Municipal Corporation of Delhi's (MCD) renovation plans for the Anand Vihar Bus Terminal with the Petitioner’s right to livelihood.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner should not be disturbed from his designated area provided he adheres to strict conditions to ensure public convenience.

It clarified that these rights are provisional and subject to the statutory vending plan to be finalized by the TVC-II, thereby preventing any claim of vested permanent rights

The Petitioner was permitted to continue vending at his current designated spot subject to five conditions: (i) restricting operations to a specific space without encroaching on pedestrian paths; (ii) maintaining hygiene and providing a dustbin; (iii) a prohibition on sub-letting or creating third-party interests; (iv) a prohibition on permanent or temporary constructions; and (v) subjection to the final plan of the TVC-II under the Street Vendors Act