Legal issues in The Street Vendors bill

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill, passed by Lok Sabha on September 6, 2013, is a landmark piece of legislation for the urban poor.

>>It does not apply to land, premises and trains owned or controlled by the Railways under the Railways Act, 1989.

>>  Police harass vendors and take haptas from vendor on the name of  :-
IPC 283 - danger or obstruction in public way

IPC 431 - mischief by injuries to roads, bridges, tunnels


>> In 1989, the Supreme Court held that street vendors have a fundamental right to carry on their trade or business subject to regulation and reasonable restrictions.2


>> The impetus came with a Supreme Court judgment passed in October 2010 — Gainda Ram and Ors vs MCD. The court directed the "authorities" to frame adequate laws by July 2011 to protect and regulate street vending.

Who is authority ? State / Center ?

A debate ensued on what the competent "authority" was. The Centre said that since street vending was a matter of urban policy, it was the responsibility of the state governments.

>> why State is authority ?

In 2006, in response to a question during Question Hour in the Lok Sabha, the government had stated “street vending is a state subject. Central government does not have the mandate to enact legislation on street vending”.8

Currently, some states such as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have passed laws empowering urban local authorities or municipalities to regulate street vending.7 State governments derive power to legislate on the issue from Item 5 of the State List that covers local government and municipal corporations.


The NAC when recommending a central law acknowledged that “since the subject matter relates to municipal laws and other entries pertaining to the State List of the Constitution, the law on street vending should be enacted by states. The Centre’s responsibility is confined to recommending a Model Bill”.

However, the NAC justified a central law by considering street vending as an issue of livelihood and employment and not just municipal regulation.

>> Why center is Authority ? :-

a central law could be framed if the pith and substance of this Bill covers entries 20, 23 and 24 of the Concurrent List, i.e., economic and social planning; social security, social insurance, employment; and, welfare of labour including conditions of work.10

Finally, it was decided that urban development was not the issue, the livelihood of the urban working poor was. And that was in the domain of the Union government (as in the case of MGNREGA).


>>Conflict with state laws :-

1. The TVC has a limited role involving the issue and renewal of registration and vending certificates and keeping records of street vendors such as the stall allotted for vending, category of vending and the business carried out. However, in some states such as Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan the laws on street vending (and the Odisha street vendors policy) give the TVC the power to identify and designate vending zones and determine the vending capacity of each zone. In this bill , deciding the location of vending street lies to local authority.

2. The current Bill also differs with state laws on the mechanism for dispute resolution. Under the Bill the local authority will constitute a dispute redressal committee that will consist of a sub judge/judicial magistrate or an executive magistrate and other persons experienced in street vending and natural markets. However in states such as Rajasthan and Odisha the TVC is empowered to resolve disputes between street vendors.

3. Under the Bill, if the state law differs from the central law, the central law will prevail. This implies that the powers of the TVC as specified in the Bill will replace the powers of the TVC envisioned in state laws.