How should cities reclaim footpaths? | Explained

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, represents a landmark legislative intervention in India's urban governance framework, born out of decades of struggle by informal workers and judicial activism. Before this Act, street vendors — estimated at over 10 million nationwide — operated in a legal vacuum, subject to arbitrary evictions, harassment by municipal authorities and police, and extortion. The Supreme Court's 2003 judgment in *Gainda Ram v. MCD* and the 2010 *Sodan Singh v. NDMC* ruling recognized vending as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) and Article 21 (right to livelihood), directing states to enact protective legislation. The 2014 Act operationalized these constitutional mandates, marking a shift from viewing vendors as 'encroachers' to recognizing them as legitimate urban economic actors. At the heart of the Act lies a participatory governance model. The Town Vending Committee (TVC), mandated in every municipal zone, must comprise 40% elected street vendor representatives, alongside officials, planners, and civil society — a rare statutory example of inclusive decision-making. The TVC conducts surveys to identify existing vendors, delineates vending zones (restricted, regulated, and no-vending), and approves relocation plans. Crucially, Section 3(3) prohibits eviction until a vendor is accommodated in a designated zone, and Section 12 mandates that no survey, no eviction — a provision Bengaluru's BBMP allegedly violated in its 2024 footpath clearance drive. Reports indicate BBMP removed vendors from major corridors like MG Road and Commercial Street without completing the mandatory survey or convening TVC meetings, drawing legal notices from the Karnataka High Court and criticism from the National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI). This episode underscores a systemic tension in Indian urbanization: the conflict between 'smart city' aesthetics and informal economy realities. Footpaths are contested spaces — essential for pedestrian safety (a Supreme Court priority under *Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation*, 1985) yet also lifelines for vendors who contribute an estimated ₹80,000 crore annually to urban GDP. The Act attempts balance through zoning, but implementation falters due to weak TVCs, political interference, and municipal capacity gaps. Only 12 states had framed rules by 2020, and surveys remain incomplete in metros like Mumbai and Delhi. Constitutionally, the Act reinforces Directive Principles (Article 38, 39, 41) by securing livelihood dignity. It also intersects with the 74th Amendment's devolution mandate — yet urban local bodies often bypass ward committees and TVCs, centralizing power. Internationally, India's law aligns with ILO Recommendation 204 on transitioning from informal to formal economy and UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 (inclusive cities). Looking ahead, the 2024 Bengaluru controversy may trigger judicial tightening of survey and TVC compliance. The Centre's 2023 advisory urging states to complete surveys within six months signals policy urgency. For aspirants, this case exemplifies governance deficits in policy implementation, the judiciary's role in rights enforcement, and the political economy of urban space — themes recurring across UPSC GS-II, GS-III, and essay papers.