Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed a COVID-19 pandemic-era notification that had diluted the classification of "Essential Service Providers" in Chandigarh, while issuing a comprehensive set of mandatory directives to ensure the welfare, safety, and structured rehabilitation of genuine street vendors.

The Court emphasized that administrative actions must maintain an adequate sense of fairness and minimize economic disruption, ordering the immediate operationalization of designated vending zones, the integration of smart identification cards with local law enforcement, and the mandatory installation of CCTV cameras within six months to safeguard both vendors and consumers.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh inter alia directed, "In order to ensure safety and security of the vendors as also the buyers visiting the vending zones, the installation of CCTV cameras must be completed within six months, with adequate provision of storing the videos for a specified period of time as may be deemed fit...The authorities to consider having a helpline for the vendors and buyers with the authority in order to boost the confidence of the vendors, the security of the vending zone and also the trust of the buyers in proper regulation of the area..."

AOR Gorang Goyal appeared for the Appellants, while AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal appeared for the Respondents. 

Brief Facts

The civil appeal arose out of a dispute concerning the regulation of street vending, removal of unauthorized encroachments, and the rehabilitation of street vendors within the urban areas. In terms of earlier directions, the respondent-State and the Municipal Corporation had identified specific vending zones and carried out anti-encroachment drives to enforce compliance.

The authorities had filed affidavits detailing the number of registered street vendors, the issuance of penalty challans, the cancellation of licenses for non-payment of dues, and the availability of basic amenities at the relocated sites. The matter also involved the adjudication of pending statutory appeals and applications before the Appellate Authority and the Grievance Dispute Redressal Cell (GRDRC).

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellants and the Amicus Curiae contended that the mere issuance of penalty challans by the corporation was a revenue-generating exercise rather than a sustainable solution for permanent encroachment removal or meaningful rehabilitation. It was argued that the mass cancellation of licenses severely impacted livelihoods, forcing several unregistered or cancelled vendors to resort to illegal street vending due to a lack of alternative employment.

It was urged that the authorities must be directed to file a result-oriented compliance report backed by photographic and field verification data, establish post-drive monitoring teams, and adhere to a strict, time-bound schedule to clear pending applications before the grievance redressal forums.

An objection was raised against the expansion of the definition of "Essential Service Providers" under the amended bye-laws, asserting that including food vendors like those selling chhole bhature or paranthas diluted the core concept of essential services, which had been expanded only to meet the peculiar, stressful exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Respondent-Municipal Corporation submitted that anti-encroachment drives were periodically recurring statutory exercises executed under the applicable municipal laws and street vendors bye-laws. It was contended that the administration was actively issuing smart identity cards embedded with geo-coordinates to ensure the authenticity of allocated sites, and nodal officers had been appointed to inspect daily the basic amenities available at the vending zones.

It was stated that the cancellation of licenses was a measure of last resort executed only after affording the defaulting vendors ample opportunity and public notice to clear their outstanding dues. It was further maintained that a substantial number of statutory appeals had already been heard and disposed of by the Appellate Authority, and the remaining pending disputes were being processed expeditiously.

Observations and Directions of the Court

The Court observed that while the efforts made by the respondent-State had borne some fruit, any administrative action must ensure minimum disruption to the livelihoods of vendors with an adequate sense of fairness and responsibility. It was noted that relocation not only disrupts a vendor’s established customer base but also deprives local residents of immediate and proximate access to daily services.

The Court further observed that the notification amending the bye-laws to expand the definition of "Essential Service Providers" and extending their operating hours had outlived its object, purpose, and utility, as it had been brought out under unique disaster conditions. Consequently, the Court quashed the said notification, restoring the status quo ante under the original unamended rules.

The Court issued a series of mandatory directions:

1. The authorities were directed to immediately carry out the shifting of licensed vendors to the newly identified zones and ensure daily monitoring.

2. The vending zones should be made fully operational with everyday monitoring by the city officials to ensure smooth functioning, along with adequate road signage in all languages of daily use, pointing the commuting public to the zones.

3. The Court ordered that the public amenities in each of these vending zones, if not already there, be established forthwith, and once operational, requisite attention be paid to their upkeep.

4. Advertisements should be placed both in print and electronic media at regular intervals, informing the public of the vending zones and the timing associated therewith.

5. The Court directed that the details of each vendor, along with the smart card number, be supplied to the jurisdictional police station(s) and the District Administration

4. For the safety of buyers and vendors alike, the Court directed the installation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras with video backup facilities within a period of six months, alongside the creation of a dedicated helpline.

"Accordingly, we quash the said Notification dated 17th July 2020 extracted supra. Undoubtedly, the earlier Notification would govern the field", the Court said.

Finally, the Court mandated that all currently pending appeals and applications before the Appellate Authority and the GRDRC be decided within a strict timeline of sixty days, with an outer limit of thirty days prescribed for any fresh filings.

Cause Title: Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of UT of Chandigarh and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 663]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate on Record Gorang Goyal

Respondents: Advocate on Record Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate on Record Shubham Bhalla, Advocate on Record Ashok Mathur, Advocate on Record Vishal Arun Mishra, Advocate on Record Krishna Kumar, Advocate on Record Siddharth Mittal, Advocate on Record Vinod Sharma, Advocate Alex Noel Dass, Advocate Ragini Sharma, Advocate Kamal Joshi, Advocate Neha Verma, Advocate Chiranjeev Sugandh, Advocate Rupali Panwar, Advocate Suresh Kumari, Advocate Divya Mishra, Advocate Jasbir Singh, Advocate Gaurav Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: