How should cities reclaim footpaths?

Following the Supreme Court’s recognition of safe and obstruction-free footpaths as a fundamental right, Bengaluru launched a 10-day “Safe Footpath” drive across its five city corporations. 

Why was the Street Vendors Act, 2014 enacted?

• To protect street vendors from arbitrary eviction by municipal bodies and police and to recognise street vending as a legitimate occupation protected under Article 19.
• To regulate vending through a clear legal process instead of sudden removal.
• To determine who may vend, where vending is permitted and under what conditions.
• To provide procedures for relocation or eviction with due notice.
• To balance vendors’ right to livelihood with the public’s right to safe and obstruction-free footpaths.
• The Act neither grants unrestricted rights over public spaces nor functions merely as an anti-encroachment law.

Process Before Removal of Street Vendors

• A Town Vending Committee (TVC) must first be constituted with officials, police, planning authorities, residents and street vendors.
• Street vendors must constitute at least 40% of the TVC, with representation for women and marginalised groups.
• The TVC must conduct a comprehensive survey of all existing street vendors.
• No vendor can be evicted or relocated until the survey is completed and Certificates of Vending are issued.
• Eligible vendors receive a Certificate of Vending specifying the permitted location, time and conditions of vending.
• The certificate provides a regulated right to vend but does not grant ownership over public land.
• Vendors may be removed or relocated only by following the procedure, notice requirements and safeguards prescribed under the Act.

Why has Bengaluru’s Footpath Drive Come Under Scrutiny?

• Bengaluru has not formally identified vending and no-vending zones through the prescribed legal process.
• Authorities relied on an allegedly outdated 2024 survey, instead of conducting a fresh enumeration before relocation.
• The survey identified only 27,665 vendors, which vendors consider a serious underestimate.
• Nearly 1.34 lakh vendors had reportedly received loans under PM SVANidhi, indicating a major mismatch in official data.
• The drive prioritised pedestrian access but allegedly bypassed statutory safeguards protecting vendors from arbitrary eviction.
• The law requires a balance between the right to safe footpaths and the right to livelihood, rather than giving absolute priority to either.