Street vendors are jubilant about the new law; now for its implementation.
Street vendors in India, estimated to number approximately 10
million, face an unenviable situation in many ways. They cater to the
need for essentials, food and other items of daily use at affordable
prices for customers across economic categories. At the same time, given
the chaotic city and town
planning, they occupy precious space that
pedestrians and vehicles grudge them, leading to hostility and even law
and order situations. They also end up paying a significant amount of
their earnings as bribes and protection money. The recently passed
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street
Vending) Act is set to change much of this. Its implementation will
require not only a change in the attitude of officialdom, of many
residents’ associations as well as of big shopkeepers towards the street
vendors. It will also require structural changes in terms of town
planning. Hitherto, the political class has hypocritically played both
sides, on the one hand vowing to protect the street vendors’ livelihood
albeit for a pound of flesh and on the other assuring residents’
associations that the “menace of hawkers” will be got rid of.
The new law has been hailed by activists as the first to accommodate
the claims and needs of the poor in urban plans. Not only in India but
in much of the developing world street vending provides the opportunity
of “self-employment” to the unemployed poor. Invariably, the design and
planning of urban spaces largely ignores their contribution and needs,
leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. India has been no exception.
Eviction drives and demolition of “illegal” structures are a common
occurrence often backed by harassed pedestrians, vehicle drivers and
residents. The authorities also indulge in these exercises on the
pretext of “beautifying” urban spaces, often throwing vendors into areas
where they lose their customers and earnings.
The oft-repeated excuse that they do not pay taxes needs to be offset
against the bribes, protection money and daily harassment that they
face. The plight of women vendors in terms of sexual harassment and
physical hardships is hardly ever acknowledged. Given the limited number
of hawking zones and licenses the bulk of these vendors fall into the
unauthorised category. And yet, it is not merely their own employment
that these vendors facilitate; they sustain a large urban economy.
Further, they provide convenient access to markets not just to the urban
poor but also to a large section of the middle class. Moreover, it has
been observed that women are much safer in areas with street vendors
since these places tend to be well-lit and patronised by shoppers.
Despite these crucial services, violation of urban laws and city plans
by street vendors is often used to harass them and demand their
eviction; this in a context where the infringement of public spaces by
the urban rich, in many forms, is ignored both by administrators as well
as the media.
The Street Vendors Act envisages that every city municipal
corporation will set up a town vending committee which will have the
municipal commissioner, representatives of the local planning
authorities, residents’ associations and the street vendors. It is this
committee that will vet applications for street vending and fix
locations for vendors. It also provides for the municipal corporation to
survey street vendors in order to ensure their place in town plans. The
number of vendors can be up to a maximum of 2.5% of the local
population. Also, the Act requires the demarcation of areas for street
vending which is reasonable and consistent with existing natural
markets. However, activists have pointed out that while this Act
overrides state and municipal laws, there are possibilities of
centre-state friction since municipal zoning falls within the
jurisdiction of states. It is also an open question how this central law
relates to the different schemes framed under the National Policy on
Urban Street Vendors by different municipal bodies and how it is
implemented by the police and other local authorities. There may also be
problems with ensuring equal and just treatment to all street vendors
and the danger of regulatory capture by politically influential sections
of street vendors still remains.
Implementation is where this Act will be crucially tested. The track
record of most municipal authorities in awarding contracts for
utilisation of public spaces, building public infrastructure and dealing
with the needs of the urban poor has been far from good. Since
representatives of street vendors will not be part of the town
plan-making process, how far will their interests be protected? The
Supreme Court in its 2010 order to the Delhi Municipal Corporation said
that hawking is a fundamental right. However, it also said that this
right was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution and that the two rights – that of the commuters and the
vendors – must be harmonised and regulated.
The onus is on the authorities primarily, and also on the street
vendors’ representatives and that of the residents of cities to ensure
that the right of the urban poor to secure livelihoods and that of
residents to a well-planned city is not jeopardised.