Image for Representation
Every dispute over a footpath in an Indian city reflects a deeper challenge of urban governance. Cities have a legitimate responsibility to ensure that pedestrians can walk safely on public pavements. At the same time, the law recognises that street vendors earn their livelihood from public spaces and cannot simply be treated as illegal encroachers whenever an enforcement drive is launched.
The challenge, therefore, is not whether cities should protect pedestrians or protect vendors. It is whether they can uphold both interests within the legal framework established by Parliament.
The issue has once again come into focus in Bengaluru, where the Greater Bengaluru Authority launched its Safe Footpath Campaign on July 1, 2026, to remove encroachments and improve pedestrian movement. While the government maintained that the campaign was intended to reclaim public spaces for pedestrians, street vendors and their organisations alleged that the exercise was being carried out without fully complying with the protections available under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.
The controversy is significant not merely because it concerns Bengaluru. Similar conflicts arise across Indian cities whenever municipal authorities seek to reclaim public spaces that have gradually become occupied by a combination of parked vehicles, permanent structures, construction material, commercial extensions and street vending.
The real question is therefore larger than any single enforcement campaign: how should Indian cities reclaim footpaths without criminalising street vendors?
Why was the Street Vendors Act enacted?
Street vending has long been an integral part of India’s urban economy. Vendors provide affordable food, goods and essential services while creating employment opportunities for people with limited capital and few formal employment options.
For decades, however, street vendors operated in a legal grey area. They were frequently treated as encroachers and subjected to eviction drives, confiscation of goods and repeated harassment despite depending on vending as their primary source of livelihood.
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, was enacted to replace this uncertainty with a structured legal framework. Importantly, the Act does not confer an unrestricted right to occupy every public space. Instead, it regulates street vending through statutory surveys, certificates of vending, designated vending zones and Town Vending Committees.
In doing so, Parliament sought to reconcile two public interests that are often portrayed as competing with one another: the right of pedestrians to access safe and usable public spaces and the right of street vendors to pursue a lawful livelihood.
The Act itself recognises that a vending zone may include a footpath, pavement or sidewalk if the local authority designates the area for vending on the recommendation of the Town Vending Committee. Equally, it empowers authorities to declare certain locations as no-vending zones where public interest so requires.
The legal question, therefore, is not whether every footpath should accommodate vendors or whether every vendor should be removed. Rather, it is whether public spaces are being managed according to a transparent statutory framework instead of periodic enforcement campaigns undertaken without following the process established by law.
What does the law require before vendors can be removed?
The Street Vendors Act establishes a clear sequence that local authorities are expected to follow before undertaking eviction or relocation.
Section 3 requires every Town Vending Committee to conduct a comprehensive survey of all existing street vendors within its jurisdiction. Thereafter, fresh surveys must ordinarily be undertaken at least once every five years.
Following the survey, the Committee must ensure that identified street vendors are accommodated within vending zones, subject to the holding capacity of those zones and the applicable street-vending plan.
One of the Act’s most significant safeguards appears in Section 3(3), which provides that no street vendor shall ordinarily be evicted or relocated until the statutory survey has been completed and certificates of vending have been issued to all eligible street vendors.
This safeguard is important because it prevents authorities from assuming that every individual vending on a footpath is necessarily an illegal encroacher. Before enforcement action is taken, the legal status of vendors and the statutory process prescribed by Parliament must be considered.
At the same time, this protection cannot be read in isolation. The Act also contains separate provisions governing vendors who operate without certificates of vending, whose certificates have been cancelled or who occupy lawfully declared no-vending zones.
Accordingly, the legislation authorises action against vendors operating without valid certificates, subject to the procedure prescribed under the Act. Section 18 further empowers the local authority, acting on the recommendation of the Town Vending Committee, to declare an area or part of it as a no-vending zone for a public purpose and to relocate vendors according to the statutory procedure.
The law also generally requires that a vendor who is being relocated or evicted from the place specified in a certificate of vending should receive thirty days’ notice.
The distinction is fundamental. The Street Vendors Act does not guarantee an unlimited right to occupy any location indefinitely. Instead, it ensures that any removal or relocation takes place through the legal process established by Parliament rather than through arbitrary eviction drives.
What is the role of the Town Vending Committee?
The Town Vending Committee lies at the heart of the regulatory framework established by the Street Vendors Act. Rather than treating street vending as an issue to be addressed solely through periodic enforcement drives, the legislation creates an institutional mechanism intended to regulate vending through planning, consultation and participation.
The Committee is not merely an advisory body. It is entrusted with several statutory responsibilities, including conducting surveys of street vendors, regulating vending zones, facilitating the issue of certificates of vending and participating in the planning of street-vending arrangements. It also plays an important role in recommending the declaration of no-vending zones where public interest requires such restrictions.
The composition of the Committee reflects Parliament’s intention that decisions affecting public spaces should involve multiple stakeholders rather than only municipal authorities or enforcement agencies. The law provides for representation from local authorities, planning authorities, traffic police, police, vendor associations, market and traders’ associations, resident welfare associations and other relevant stakeholders.
Importantly, at least 40 per cent of the Committee’s members must represent street vendors, and one-third of these vendor representatives must be women.
This composition is significant because it recognises that street vendors are not merely subjects of regulation but participants in the decision-making process. Questions relating to vending zones, relocation and regulation are therefore intended to emerge from consultation rather than unilateral administrative action.
The Act also envisages maintaining and publishing information relating to street vendors and the broader street-vending framework through statutory databases and the street vendors’ charter, thereby promoting transparency and accountability.
If Town Vending Committees are not properly constituted, fail to function effectively or are bypassed during major clearance drives, an essential pillar of the statutory framework is weakened. The issue then extends beyond individual evictions to the failure of the institutional process that Parliament intended local authorities to follow.
What protections apply before street vendors can be evicted or relocated?
The Street Vendors Act seeks to ensure that eviction or relocation is governed by due process rather than administrative convenience.
Section 3(3) provides that a street vendor shall not be evicted or relocated until the statutory survey has been completed and certificates of vending have been issued to all street vendors. However, this safeguard must be read alongside the Act’s separate provisions dealing with vendors who do not possess certificates of vending, whose certificates have been cancelled or who occupy lawfully declared no-vending zones.
Consequently, the legal position is more nuanced than it may initially appear.
The Act permits action against vendors operating without valid certificates of vending and against vendors whose certificates have been cancelled, subject to the prescribed statutory procedure. It also authorises local authorities to regulate no-vending zones and relocate vendors where the law permits.
Accordingly, the legality of any eviction drive cannot be assessed merely by asking whether vendors were present on a footpath.
The more relevant questions are:
- Was the statutory survey completed?
- Was a Town Vending Committee properly constituted and involved in the process?
- Were certificates of vending issued in accordance with the Act?
- Was the area lawfully declared a no-vending zone?
- Were affected vendors given the notice required under the law?
- Were the statutory procedures governing relocation properly followed?
These questions are particularly important because not every obstruction on a footpath is governed by the same legal framework. A permanent commercial extension, an illegally parked vehicle, construction material occupying a pavement and a mobile street vendor may all impede pedestrian movement, yet each may be subject to different laws, different authorities and different procedural requirements.
An effective footpath policy must therefore distinguish between different categories of encroachment rather than treating every obstruction as legally identical.
Why has Bengaluru’s footpath drive come under scrutiny?
Bengaluru’s recent footpath clearance campaign has brought these legal questions into sharp public focus.
The Greater Bengaluru Authority launched the Safe Footpath Campaign with the stated objective of removing encroachments and improving pedestrian movement. The government’s stated position has consistently been that reclaiming public spaces is necessary to ensure that pedestrians can use footpaths safely. Officials also indicated that vendors could be shifted away from major arterial and sub-arterial roads to internal roads and other designated locations.
However, the manner in which the campaign was implemented attracted criticism from street vendors and their organisations. Reports indicated that vendors alleged they were being asked to vacate without adequate notice and without viable alternative spaces. Questions were also raised regarding whether the statutory protections available under the Street Vendors Act had been fully observed during the drive.
The government, on the other hand, maintained that the campaign was not intended to eliminate street vending altogether. Its stated approach was to relocate vendors from heavily congested arterial and sub-arterial roads while simultaneously removing other forms of obstruction, including illegally parked vehicles, abandoned vehicles and construction debris.
The debate intensified after the government announced that a provisional Town Vending Committee would be constituted to address vendors’ concerns, identify vending zones and facilitate identity cards for eligible vendors.
This development inevitably prompted a broader institutional question. If the Street Vendors Act envisages Town Vending Committees as central participants in surveying, regulating and planning street vending, should these mechanisms not already be functioning before large-scale clearance drives commence?
The government unquestionably has a legitimate responsibility to ensure that pedestrians can walk safely. A city cannot claim to possess modern public infrastructure if people are routinely forced to leave footpaths and walk on busy roads because pavements are obstructed.
Equally, however, the solution cannot simply involve removing vendors from one location without addressing where they may lawfully carry on their occupation thereafter.
Relocating vendors from arterial roads to narrower internal roads may merely transfer the underlying conflict if those roads themselves lack adequate pedestrian infrastructure or sufficient space for regulated vending. Instead of resolving the issue, the city risks shifting it from one neighbourhood to another.
The campaign has also been significant in scale. According to the Karnataka government, approximately 430 kilometres of Bengaluru’s footpaths had been cleared of encroachments since July 1. As this figure originates from the government, it should properly be understood as an official claim rather than an independently verified assessment of every clearance action.
Ultimately, the controversy highlights a larger issue that extends well beyond Bengaluru.
The fundamental problem is not street vending alone. It is the absence of consistent urban planning.
Debates over footpaths frequently focus on vendors because they are the most visible occupants of public spaces. Yet pavements are also obstructed by illegally parked vehicles, commercial extensions, construction debris, utility infrastructure and permanent structures.
A selective enforcement campaign directed primarily at street vendors therefore risks creating the perception that the least powerful users of public space are being targeted while more substantial encroachments remain untouched.
This observation does not imply that vendors should be permitted to obstruct pedestrian movement indefinitely. The Street Vendors Act itself imposes obligations upon vendors to maintain cleanliness, public hygiene and civic amenities within vending zones. Vendors are also required to comply with the conditions attached to their certificates of vending and may not lawfully operate within officially designated no-vending zones.
The challenge, therefore, is not choosing between unrestricted vending and blanket eviction. The challenge is implementing the statutory framework consistently and fairly.
How should cities reclaim footpaths?
The recurring conflict over footpaths demonstrates that Indian cities do not suffer from a lack of laws. They suffer from inconsistent implementation and inadequate urban planning. The Street Vendors Act already provides a statutory framework for regulating street vending while protecting livelihoods. The challenge is to ensure that this framework is implemented in a manner that also guarantees safe and accessible public spaces for pedestrians.
First, cities must conduct regular, transparent and comprehensive surveys of street vendors as required under the Street Vendors Act. A regulatory framework cannot function effectively if local authorities do not possess an accurate and up-to-date record of existing vendors. Periodic surveys are not merely procedural requirements; they form the foundation upon which lawful planning and regulation depend.
Second, vending zones and no-vending zones should be identified through a transparent planning process and made publicly available. Vendors should know where they are legally permitted to operate, residents should understand the basis on which those areas have been designated, and enforcement agencies should apply the same standards consistently across the city.
Third, Town Vending Committees must function as genuine participatory institutions rather than existing only on paper. Their role should extend beyond approving surveys or issuing certificates. They should actively participate in identifying appropriate vending locations, reviewing local conditions and resolving conflicts between competing uses of public space before those conflicts escalate into eviction drives.
Fourth, footpath clearance campaigns should address every significant form of encroachment rather than focusing disproportionately on street vendors. A city that removes a vegetable cart while ignoring permanently extended shopfronts, illegally parked vehicles, construction debris or unauthorised structures is not reclaiming public space in a fair or consistent manner. Effective urban governance requires that similar standards be applied to all categories of obstruction, irrespective of who is responsible.
Fifth, vendors who are entitled to statutory protection must receive due process. Where relocation is lawfully required, it should be carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the applicable scheme. Compliance with due process is not an obstacle to urban planning; it is an essential component of lawful governance.
As a matter of sound urban policy, relocation should also be meaningful. Merely moving vendors to locations where there is little pedestrian movement or virtually no commercial activity may satisfy the formal requirement of relocation while effectively depriving vendors of their livelihood. A relocation policy that leaves vendors unable to earn a living is unlikely to produce durable compliance and may simply recreate the same conflict elsewhere.
Cities should also recognise that a single regulatory model may not be suitable for every location. Footpaths adjoining schools, hospitals, transport hubs and heavily used commercial districts may require stricter restrictions because of high pedestrian volumes. Other areas may be capable of accommodating regulated vending without compromising pedestrian movement. In appropriate locations, time-based arrangements may permit vending during specified hours while ensuring that footpaths remain unobstructed during peak pedestrian periods. The statutory framework provides sufficient flexibility for local authorities to adopt such context-specific planning solutions.
Ultimately, enforcement should complement urban planning rather than substitute for it. Repeated eviction drives may temporarily clear public spaces, but they do not resolve the underlying issue if vendors have no lawful and economically viable alternatives. In the absence of sustained planning, the cycle is likely to repeat itself: vendors are removed, livelihoods are disrupted and many eventually return to the same locations because those spaces continue to provide the economic opportunities necessary for survival.
Conclusion
Indian cities unquestionably need safe, continuous and accessible footpaths. Pedestrians should never be compelled to walk on busy roads because public pavements have become obstructed.
At the same time, the solution cannot lie in treating every street vendor as an illegal encroacher. Parliament enacted the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, precisely because it recognised that livelihood protection and pedestrian access are not mutually exclusive objectives. The legislation attempts to reconcile both interests through surveys, vending zones, certificates of vending and participatory Town Vending Committees.
The experience of Bengaluru serves as a timely reminder that reclaiming public spaces requires more than periodic enforcement campaigns. Sustainable solutions depend upon transparent planning, functioning institutions, consistent implementation of the law and equal treatment of all forms of encroachment.
The real choice before Indian cities is not between protecting pedestrians and protecting street vendors. It is between continuing with reactive eviction drives or building a predictable, legally compliant and well-planned system of public-space management that safeguards both mobility and livelihood.
A well-designed city should not force pedestrians onto the road, nor should it force lawfully protected vendors into uncertainty. Good urban governance requires planning that accommodates both. The Street Vendors Act already provides much of the legal framework needed to achieve that objective. The task before India’s cities is not to reinvent the law, but to implement it fairly, consistently and with a long-term vision for inclusive urban development.
About the Author
