1989 (8) TMI 358 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether street trading is a fundamental right u/s Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
2. The extent and nature of restrictions that can be imposed on street trading u/s Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
3. The necessity for regulatory measures for street trading in Delhi/New Delhi.
4. The role of the State in designating areas for street trading and the implications of inaction.

Summary:

1. Fundamental Right to Street Trading:
The judgment affirms that street trading, whether as an itinerant vendor/hawker or from a stationary position, is a fundamental right guaranteed u/s Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State u/s Article 19(6). The judgment elaborates that the terms 'profession', 'occupation', 'trade', and 'business' in Article 19(1)(g) are intended to cover all legitimate means of earning a livelihood, including street trading.

2. Restrictions on Street Trading:
The judgment acknowledges that while public streets are primarily for public use, they can also be used for street trading, subject to reasonable restrictions. It references the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1982 in England, which regulates street trading through designations such as 'prohibited street', 'licence street', and 'consent street'. The judgment emphasizes that similar regulatory measures are necessary in India to balance the right to trade with public convenience and order.

3. Regulatory Measures in Delhi/New Delhi:
The judgment notes the lack of comprehensive regulatory measures for street trading in Delhi/New Delhi, with only skeletal provisions in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It references previous judgments suggesting the creation of hawking and non-hawking zones to manage street trading effectively. The judgment stresses the need for a structured approach to regulate street trading, considering the significant number of people engaged in this business and the essential services they provide.

4. Role of the State and Implications of Inaction:
The judgment underscores the State's responsibility to enact laws imposing reasonable restrictions on street trading in the interest of the general public. It highlights that the State must designate specific streets and areas for street trading to ensure the fundamental right is not negated. The judgment warns that continued inaction by the State would compel the courts to intervene to protect citizens' rights.

In conclusion, the judgment calls for immediate legislative action to regulate street trading, ensuring that the fundamental right u/s Article 19(1)(g) is upheld while maintaining public order and convenience.