Relocation of Street Vendors Must Ensure Minimum Livelihood Disruption and Provision of Essential Basic Amenities

The appeal concerns the regulation and relocation of street vendors in Chandigarh to designated vending zones. In previous orders, the Court emphasized balancing urban management with the livelihood of vendors

The Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh (MCC) submitted data showing 10,939 registered vendors and approximately 6,881 license cancellations due to fee defaults

While the MCC highlighted anti-encroachment drives and the provision of mobile toilets, the amicus curiae challenged the effectiveness of these measures, arguing that mass cancellations severely impact livelihoods and that the definition of "Essential Service Providers" (ESP) had been improperly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic

1. Whether the administrative measures taken for the relocation of vendors and the provision of basic amenities in designated zones are sufficient to protect the livelihood of vendors under the Street Vendors Act

2. Whether the 2020 amendment to the Street Vendors Bye-Laws, which expanded the definition of "Essential Service Providers," remains legally sustainable post-pandemic

The court primarily applied the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and the Street Vendors Bye-laws of 2018, which govern the identification of vending zones and the rights of vendors

It also scrutinized the exercise of powers under Section 37 of the 2014 Act regarding the notification of amendments to bye-laws

The reasoning was underpinned by the principle of "minimum disruption of livelihood" and the requirement for fairness and responsibility in State action

The Court evaluated the MCC's compliance efforts, noting that while some progress was made—such as issuing smart IDs with geo-coordinates and appointing nodal officers—significant gaps remained in infrastructure and dispute resolution

The Court addressed the amicus curiae’s contention that the 2020 pandemic-era notification had "outlived its object"

By analyzing the scope of "Essential Service Providers," the Court found that the inclusion of various food vendors (e.g., Chhole Bhature, Parantha) and the extension of evening vending hours to 10 P.M. were measures tied to unique disaster conditions that no longer reflect the current regulatory necessity

Consequently, the Court determined that restoring the original, narrower definitions was necessary to maintain the integrity of the vending regulations

It mandated that all pending appeals before the Grievance Redressal Cell be decided within 60 days

Most significantly, the Court quashed the Notification dated 17th July 2020, restoring the original definition of Essential Service Providers and previous vending hours

The MCC was directed to file a compliance affidavit by 22nd July 2026