Safe Footpaths: Balancing pedestrian and street-vendor rights

Why in News?

The Hindu examined how Indian cities should reclaim footpaths after Bengaluru’s Safe Footpath campaign brought pedestrian safety and the livelihoods of street vendors into direct policy debate.

The drive followed the Supreme Court’s 19 June 2026 ruling in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, which declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right. Enforcement must still comply with the Street Vendors Act, 2014 rather than treating every vendor as an illegal encroacher.

• Bengaluru began a citywide footpath-clearance drive on arterial and sub-arterial roads in July 2026, prompting both public support and vendor protests.
• The Supreme Court located the right to walk primarily in Article 19(1)(d), read with Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) and 21.
• Vendor unions questioned alleged removals without prior notice or meaningful consultation with the Town Vending Committee.
• The dispute is not a choice between pedestrians and vendors; it tests whether urban local bodies can plan scarce street space lawfully and inclusively.

The development matters in the context of:

• The right to movement, the freedom to practise a trade under Article 19(1)(g), and the right to livelihood under Article 21 can coexist through reasonable, non-arbitrary regulation.
• A clear footpath is an accessibility requirement for wheelchair users, people with visual impairments, older persons, children and caregivers, not merely an urban-beautification preference.
• The Act treats street vending as part of the urban economy, while its First Schedule expressly protects the commuter’s ability to use roads without impediment.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims Relevance

• The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is a Central law administered by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
• A street vendor may sell goods or services from a temporary structure or while moving in a street, lane, sidewalk, footpath, pavement, public park, another public place or a private area.
• A Town Vending Committee conducts surveys, issues vending certificates, recommends vending zones and maintains vendor records.
• A survey of existing vendors must be conducted at least once every five years under Section 3.
• The accommodation norm is linked to 2.5% of the population of the ward, zone, town or city, subject to the street-vending plan and the holding capacity of vending zones.
• At least 40% of TVC members must be elected representatives of street vendors; one-third of these vendor representatives must be women.
• A certified vendor cannot be removed from the place specified in the certificate without 30 days’ notice under Section 18.
• Section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 requires accessibility standards for the physical environment, transport and public services.

Mains Relevance

GS Paper 2

• Balancing fundamental rights, due process, livelihood protection and the positive duties of the State.
• Implementation gaps in the Street Vendors Act, 2014, participatory institutions and social-justice delivery.
• Accountability of municipalities under the 74th Constitutional Amendment and the Twelfth Schedule.

GS Paper 1

• Indian urbanisation, informal employment, contested public space and inclusive-city planning.
• Effects of mobility design on women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities.

Essay

• The right to the city is strongest when public space serves mobility, livelihood, dignity and social interaction together.
• Good governance converts a perceived clash of rights into a problem of fair design and accountable procedure.

Background and Context

The constitutional balance

Pedestrian access and street vending are both protected interests, but neither creates an unrestricted claim over public space.

• In Maniyar Iliyaz, the Supreme Court declared that the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is integral to Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 and takes priority over the privilege of motorised movement.
• The Court placed a corresponding duty on urban development authorities, municipalities and panchayats to demarcate, construct, maintain and safeguard pedestrian infrastructure.
• A violation may support constitutional or legal remedies for restitution and compensation, independent of a motor-accident claim.
• In Sodan Singh v. NDMC (1989), the Supreme Court recognised street trading as protected by Article 19(1)(g), while allowing reasonable regulation in the public interest.
• A vendor has no absolute right to occupy a particular spot; equally, a municipality cannot extinguish livelihood through arbitrary raids when Parliament has prescribed a survey, certification, zoning and relocation framework.
• For the static constitutional setting, see the Anantam IAS notes on the right to walk and urban local bodies.

What the Street Vendors Act protects

The 2014 Act protects livelihood by replacing discretionary tolerance with a regulated entitlement.

• Section 3 requires the TVC to survey all existing vendors and repeat the exercise at least once in every five years.
• All vendors identified in the survey must be accommodated in vending zones, subject to the 2.5% population norm, the street-vending plan and each zone’s holding capacity.
• Section 3(3) bars eviction or relocation until the survey is complete and certificates of vending have been issued to all street vendors.
• A certificate may classify a person as a stationary vendor, mobile vendor or another category and may specify the zone, days, timings and operating conditions.
• If applicants exceed a zone’s holding capacity, the TVC uses a draw of lots; remaining persons should be accommodated in an adjoining zone to avoid relocation.
• Section 12 protects vending in accordance with the certificate, but no vending is allowed in a duly earmarked no-vending zone.
• The law also imposes duties: vendors must maintain cleanliness and public hygiene, protect civic amenities, observe time-sharing limits and pay prescribed maintenance charges.

Town Vending Committee as the participatory core

The TVC is designed to keep street-space decisions from becoming a one-sided police or municipal exercise.

• The Municipal Commissioner or Chief Executive Officer chairs the committee.
• Its membership includes the local authority, planning authority, medical officer, traffic police, police, vendor associations, traders, resident groups, banks and civil-society organisations.
• At least 40% of members must be street-vendor representatives elected by vendors; one-third of those representatives must be women.
• Vendor representation must also include due representation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, minorities and persons with disabilities.
• TVC decisions must be notified with reasons, strengthening transparency and review.
• The committee conducts surveys, issues or renews certificates, maintains an updated vendor database, publishes a street-vendor charter and carries out social audits.
• The local authority prepares a street-vending plan every five years in consultation with the planning authority and on the TVC’s recommendations.

The lawful survey-to-eviction sequence

The legality of a clearance drive depends on the vendor’s status, the status of the zone and the procedure followed.

• First, survey and certify: a city should identify existing vendors and issue certificates before invoking routine removal powers against the surveyed population.
• Second, plan and zone: restriction-free, restricted and no-vending zones must emerge from the statutory plan, not from an ad hoc enforcement map.
• Third, minimise displacement: an existing or natural market cannot be declared a no-vending zone merely because it is crowded; displacement must be kept to the minimum.
• Fourth, consult the TVC: a local authority may declare a no-vending zone for a public purpose and relocate vendors only on the TVC’s recommendation and under the applicable scheme.
• Fifth, distinguish status: Section 18 permits eviction of a person vending without a certificate or after cancellation, but a certified vendor must receive 30 days’ notice before removal from the certified site.
• Sixth, relocate fairly: a certified vendor relocated under Section 18 is entitled to a new site or area determined by the local authority in consultation with the TVC.
• Seventh, document seizure: officials must give the vendor a signed inventory of seized goods; perishable goods claimed by the vendor must be released the same day and non-perishables within two working days.
• The Second Schedule says relocation should be avoided unless there is a clear and urgent need, affected vendors should participate, and livelihoods should be improved or at least restored to pre-eviction levels.

Pedestrian and disability-access norms

A footpath is safe only when it supplies a continuous route that people with different bodies and abilities can actually use.

• Section 40 of the RPwD Act, 2016 requires standards for accessibility in the physical environment, transport and public facilities; Rule 15 incorporates sector-specific accessibility standards.
• The Government’s Harmonised Guidelines and Standards for Universal Accessibility in India, 2021 recommend a minimum clear walkway width of 1,200 mm and 1,800 mm for two-way movement, with 1,500 mm only in exceptional pinch points.
• Walkways should be smooth, hard, level and slip-resistant, with a gradient not steeper than 1:20 and without abrupt level changes.
• A continuous route needs kerb ramps, tactile guiding and warning surfaces, safe crossings, adequate headroom and resting space on long stretches.
• Stalls, parked vehicles, utility boxes, signboards, waste and broken slabs can each sever the accessible chain; enforcement that targets only vendors misses the wider duty.
• Accessibility is a question of substantive equality: a narrow residual gap that an able-bodied adult can squeeze through may remain unusable for a wheelchair, walking aid or pram.
• The wider legal framework is explained in the Anantam IAS guide to the RPwD Act, 2016.

What a rights-compliant clearance drive looks like

A lawful campaign clears the walking zone while preserving the procedural and livelihood protections created by Parliament.

• Map the pedestrian clear zone, crossings, bus stops, school and hospital approaches, utility obstacles, parking and vending together rather than labelling vendors as the sole obstruction.
• Publish ward-wise survey status, certificates, vending-zone capacity, enforcement notices and reasoned TVC decisions in accessible formats.
• Use time-sharing, vending bays, side-street markets, weekly markets and off-carriageway multi-utility zones where a full-time pitch would interrupt pedestrian movement.
• Protect natural markets near transit and work destinations because footfall, not an isolated relocation site, sustains a vendor’s income.
• Reserve immediate removal for genuine hazards and unauthorised obstructions under law; use notice, hearing and relocation wherever the Act requires them.
• Enforce the clear path against vehicle parking, shop extensions, debris and public utilities with the same seriousness applied to vending.
• Treat women vendors and vendors with disabilities as participants in design, not as beneficiaries consulted after the enforcement plan is final.

Why implementation remains difficult

The conflict persists because cities often enforce first and complete institutional planning later.

• Incomplete or outdated vendor surveys create a circular problem: vendors cannot obtain certificates, then face action for lacking certificates.
• Inactive or unrepresentative TVCs shift decisions back to municipal and police hierarchies, weakening the participatory design of the Act.
• Street design is split among municipalities, development authorities, traffic police, transport agencies and utilities, producing fragmented accountability.
• Remote relocation sites can satisfy a paper allotment while destroying customer access and livelihood viability.
• One-time drives produce short visual gains but not durable access when parking, utility cuts, waste and shop spillovers return.
• Weak grievance channels push both vendors and pedestrians toward costly court action instead of timely ward-level correction.
• The 74th Constitutional Amendment places roads, urban planning, weaker-section protection and public amenities within the municipal domain, but weak staffing and fiscal autonomy limit delivery.
• The central governance challenge is to replace episodic clearance with street management backed by current data, marked zones, maintenance budgets and grievance redress.

Way Forward

Complete the statutory foundation

• Constitute representative TVCs, finish ward-level surveys, issue time-bound certificates and update plans on the five-year cycle.
• Publish a legal-status dashboard for vending zones, natural markets and certified vendors before major enforcement.

Design streets as shared systems

• Mark an uninterrupted universal-access corridor first, then allocate vending, furniture, utilities, trees and parking outside that corridor.
• Use vending bays, time slots and pedestrianised market streets to protect both footfall and free passage.

Make enforcement even-handed

• Act against vehicles, shop extensions, construction material and defective municipal assets alongside unauthorised vending.
• Use body-worn documentation, signed inventories, digital notices and an accessible appeal channel to reduce coercion and rent-seeking.

Measure outcomes, not clearances

• Audit continuous accessible width, collision risk, vendor incomes, return of obstructions and user experience after 30, 90 and 180 days.
• Place the results before the TVC and municipal council, and include persons with disabilities in walkability audits.

Conclusion

The right to walk cannot remain symbolic when pedestrians are pushed into traffic, and the right to livelihood cannot survive if every clearance begins by bypassing the institution created to regulate vending.

The durable answer is a street-management compact: a continuous accessible path, lawful vending spaces near demand, active TVCs, transparent data and proportionate enforcement. That approach treats public space as a constitutional commons, not territory to be won by one group.

UPSC Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ 1

With reference to the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, consider the following statements:

1. A survey of existing street vendors must be conducted at least once every five years.
2. The Act fixes 2.5% of the local population as an absolute nationwide ceiling on the number of vendors.
3. No street vendor may be evicted or relocated until the statutory survey is completed and certificates of vending are issued to all street vendors.

How many of the above statements are correct?

(a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None

Answer: (b) Only two

Explanation:

Statements 1 and 3 follow Section 3. Statement 2 is incorrect: 2.5% is an accommodation norm applied with the street-vending plan and the holding capacity of vending zones, not a simple nationwide numerical ceiling.

Prelims MCQ 2

Which one of the following correctly describes the composition of a Town Vending Committee under the 2014 Act?

(a) It is chaired by the District Magistrate and has no mandatory vendor representation. (b) At least 40% of its members represent street vendors, and one-third of those vendor representatives must be women. (c) Half of all members must be municipal councillors elected from vending wards. (d) Only certified stationary vendors may participate in the committee.

Answer: (b) At least 40% of its members represent street vendors, and one-third of those vendor representatives must be women.

Explanation:

The Municipal Commissioner or Chief Executive Officer chairs the TVC. At least 40% of members are elected vendor representatives, with one-third of that group drawn from women vendors and due representation for specified vulnerable groups.

UPSC Mains Questions

1. The right to walk and the right to livelihood need not be treated as mutually exclusive claims over urban streets. Examine how the Street Vendors Act, 2014, and universal-access standards can guide rights-compliant municipal enforcement through due process and participatory zoning. (250 words)
2. Town Vending Committees convert regulation of street vending from a police function into participatory urban governance. Discuss their statutory design, key responsibilities and institutional weaknesses, and assess their role in reconciling mobility, livelihood and public-health concerns in Indian cities. (250 words)
3. One-time encroachment drives may clear a pavement without creating a walkable city. Suggest an accountable street-management framework that addresses vendors, vehicle parking, utilities, accessibility, maintenance and livelihood restoration while assigning measurable duties to municipal and planning agencies over time. (250 words)

Sources: Supreme Court of India and India Code and The Hindu.

Frequently Asked Questions