2010 (10) TMI 977 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the fundamental right of the hawkers, just because they are poor and unorganized, cannot be left in a state of limbo nor can it left to be decided by the varying standards of a scheme which changes from time to time under orders of this Court?

Issues Involved:
1. Fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
2. Regulation of hawking and street vending.
3. Implementation of schemes by NDMC and MCD.
4. Dispute Redressal Mechanism.
5. Requirement of statutory law to regulate hawking.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Fundamental Right to Carry on Business under Article 19(1)(g):
The judgment discusses the evolution of the fundamental right of hawkers to carry on business on public streets under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Initially, the case of Pyare Lal v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (AIR 1968 SC 133) held that there was no fundamental right to carry on street vending in a manner creating unsanitary conditions. However, the Constitution Bench in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989) 4 SCC 155 recognized the right of hawkers to carry on business on public streets, subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

2. Regulation of Hawking and Street Vending:
The judgment emphasizes the need for regulation of hawking to balance the rights of hawkers with public interest. It highlights various judgments and schemes that have been implemented to regulate hawking, including the Sodan Singh case, which suggested creating hawking and non-hawking zones and framing regulations for hawking. The Court also refers to the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors, 2004, and the subsequent 2009 Policy, which aim to provide a legal framework for street vending and recognize it as an integral part of urban retail trade.

3. Implementation of Schemes by NDMC and MCD:
The judgment details the schemes framed by the NDMC and MCD to regulate hawking, following the guidelines provided by the Court. These schemes include provisions for identifying vending zones, issuing licenses, and ensuring public hygiene and cleanliness. The Court notes that these schemes have been modified over time based on its orders and the 2004 Policy.

4. Dispute Redressal Mechanism:
The judgment outlines the Dispute Redressal Mechanism provided in the schemes by NDMC and MCD. For MCD, it includes a three-level mechanism involving Zonal Vending Committees, a committee headed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, and an Appellate Authority headed by a retired High Court Judge. NDMC proposes a similar three-tier system with Vending Sub-Committees and an Appellate Authority. The Court directs that grievances of hawkers should be addressed through these mechanisms rather than directly approaching the Court.

5. Requirement of Statutory Law to Regulate Hawking:
The judgment stresses the necessity of enacting a statutory law to regulate the fundamental right of hawkers. It points out that the current schemes and policies, though regulated by the Court, do not have the status of law. The Court refers to the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act 2009, which is temporary, and the Model Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, 2009, which aims to provide a legal framework for street vending. The Court directs the appropriate Government to enact a law by 30th June 2011 to regulate hawking and protect the rights of hawkers.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes by disposing of the writ petition and all IAs, directing that the problem of hawking and street vending be regulated by the existing schemes up to 30th June 2011. It emphasizes the need for a statutory law to harmonize the fundamental rights of hawkers and commuters and provides a timeframe for the Government to enact such a law. The Court also stresses that the fundamental right of hawkers cannot be left in a state of limbo and must be regulated by a law rather than varying schemes.

← Previous Next →