LexMALKIT SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 550 : 2026 INSC 341 Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2026) 09 April 2026 [Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant herein sought removal of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors which are creating nuisance, traffic hazards, hinderances in free use of paths. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – Street vendors – Encroachment on public paths, roads and public property – The instant appellant had filed the writ petition seeking removal of of encroachments on public paths, roads and public property made by fruit vendors, rehri vendors, hawkers, squatters and other vendors – The High Court dismissed the petition – Correctness: Held: The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh has filed an affidavit – It records that a certain number of challans have been issued and certain unauthorised vendors have been removed from the area – It is also submitted that all illegal street vendors have been removed and only those who possessed the license and are in the category of essential service providers or mobile vendors have been permitted – Still further, it is submitted that officers of the Enforcement Wing shall be continually deployed in the area to ensure no encroachment takes place in the area – However, any action by the State that disrupts this livelihood must therefore be carried out with care, fairness, and a clear sense of responsibility – If vending zones have already been identified and designated, it is not enough for the authorities to simply point to their existence – Removing vendors from familiar locations, even for legitimate public reasons such as easing congestion or * Author [2026] 4 S.C.R. 551 Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors. improving urban order, creates an immediate need for support – Let the State clearly clarify the existing information available at the defined vending zones which in any event have to be acceptable to all concerned – When vendors are removed without any real help in relocating, the hardship caused is out of proportion to the regulatory goal, and such an exercise risks becoming punitive rather than orderly – The State has a duty to actively support their transition to these zones in accordance with the law – The State is required to undertake efforts to let residents know that the shops have been shifted, i.e., have awareness drives that would divert the customers to the designated area – Direction issued to file an affidavit with relevant details. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13] Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(g), Art.19(6) – Street vending – Reasonable restrictions by the State: Held: The Constitution of India, through Art. 19(1)(g), guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business – Street vending falls squarely within this protection – At the same time, this right is not absolute – Art. 19(6) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public – This balance between individual freedom and collective welfare lies at the heart of the constitutional scheme. [Para 2] Constitution of India – Art.21 – Street venders – Encroachment on public places – Balancing competing rights of street vendors and other residents: Held: The Constitution does not permit placing one group’s rights over others; instead, it mandates that the State should mediate competing interests – Mediating competing interests requires a constitutional approach which takes the form of regulation of rights rather than blanket restrictions or indiscriminate eviction – Processes to be adopted in such an approach include clearly identified vending zones, transparent licensing processes, and regular consultations with vendor groups and resident welfare associations – Taking the diametrically opposite approach of heavy-handed crackdowns, removal without warning or using heavy machineries to remove semi-permanent structures is in a way, destruction of livelihoods offensive to the spirit of dignity u/Art.21. [Paras 3 and 4] 552 [2026] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. [1985] Supp.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.