Holding

Hawkers have a constitutional right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), no right under Article 21, and the scheme regulating hawking zones and licences is upheld with the specified modifications.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the long‑standing dispute over the regulation of street hawkers in Mumbai, arising from a draft scheme prepared by the Bombay Municipal Corporation that sought to designate hawking and non‑hawking zones and to regulate licences. The Court affirmed that hawkers enjoy the constitutional right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), but that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) and does not fall within Article 21. It rejected the contention that hawkers have a fundamental right to occupy any particular place or to claim protection under Article 21. The Court modified the scheme approved by the High Court, approved 236 hawking roads (including 49 additional ones), and set out detailed conditions on pitch size, prohibited items, hours, and distance from sensitive places. It also rejected the blanket exclusion of major roads and the prohibition on hawking plazas, allowing plazas subject to strict licensing and draw‑of‑lots procedures. A three‑member committee was appointed to adjudicate applications for inclusion or exclusion of roads and to determine the number of hawkers permissible on each road. The judgment directed the Municipal Corporation to implement the scheme, issue licences, and report back on progress.

Issues considered

The extent of the constitutional right of hawkers to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) and its limitation by Article 19(6).
Whether hawking is covered by the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The parameters that constitute reasonable restrictions for designating hawking and non‑hawking zones.
The legality of the scheme framed by the Bombay High Court and the scope for its modification.
The permissibility of hawking plazas and the conditions for their establishment.
The validity of specific conditions imposed on hawkers, such as pitch size, prohibition of cooking, and distance restrictions.

Legislation cited

Bombay Municipal Corporation Acts. 313-A, s. 61(o)
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Subjects

Article 19(1)(g)reasonable restrictionsstreet vendingmunicipal regulationlicensinghawking zonespublic interestSupreme Court

Judgment

MAHARASHTRA EKT A HAWKERS UNION AND ANR. A
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS.

DECEMBER 9, 2003

[S.N. VARIA VA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B

Constitution of India Article 19(1)(g) and (6)-Reasonable
restrictions-Hawking-Held, hawkers have right to carry on their trade
or business-The right can be subjected to reasonable restrictions keeping
in view convenience of the public, security etc.-Scheme fi·amed by High C
Court for regulating hawking business-Scheme modified-Restrictions/
conditions laid down for hawking business-Directions issued.

Constitution of India-Article 21-Right to life and personal liberty
under-Hawking Held, not a fundamental right.
D
In Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,
(1985) 3 SCC 528 the Court laid down certain guidelines in respect of
the scheme proposed by the Municipal Commissioner for regulating
hawking activities in Bombay and directed the Municipal Commis-
sioner to frame a final scheme on the basis of the guidelines suggested E
by it. Pursuant to the judgment, the Bombay Municipal Corporation
constituted an Advisory Committee and a draft scheme was framed on
12.8.1996. Under the draft scheme, 488 zones were shown as hawking
zones and 28 sites were earmarked for construction of hawkers' plazas.
49,000 hawkers were sought to be accommodated in the said draft F
scheme. Highways, arterial and trunk roads, footover bridges, sub-
ways, certain distance around railway stations, certain radius around
municipal markets, religious places, educational institutions, medical
institutions and large traffic junctions, were totally banned for hawk-
ers.
G
Various aspects of the draft scheme framed by the Bombay
Municipal Corporation were challenged by filing a number of writ
petitions. The draft scheme was further modified by the Bombay
Municipal Corporation and the number of hawking zones were brought
down from 488 to 377. The number of hawkers who could be H
581
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A accommodated was brought down to 38,000. The proposal for con-
struction of hawking plazas was deleted.

On 1.3.2040, the High Court constituted a Committee, which
heard and considered representations from various persons. The said
B Committee further reduced the number of hawking zones to 187. The
High Court sanctioned the scheme with a few modifications. The High
Court, inter alia, approved exclusion /of all major, trunk and arterial
roads from hawking zones and disapproved the idea of creation of
hawking plazas.

C The aggrieved parties filed special leave petitions before the
Court questioning the scheme framed by the High Court.

The Court, adjourning the matter for further information from
Bombay Municipal Corporation, partially modifying the scheme and
D laying down restrictions/conditions for regulation of hawking activities.

HELD: 1.1. The hawkers have a righ.t under Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitutio~ of India to carry on their trade and business. This right
however is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (6) of the
Constitution of India. Thus hawking may not be permitted where e.g.
E due to.narrowness ofroad free flow of traffic or movement of pedestrians
is hindered or where for security reasons an area is required to be kept
free or near hospitals, places of worship etc. (596-B-C]

1.2. There is no fundamental right under Article 21 of the
F Constitution oflndia to carry on any hawking business. There is' also
no right to do hawking at any particular place. [596-C-D) '

Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, [1985)
3 SCC 528; Olga Tellis and Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and
Others, [1985) 3 SCC 545 and Sodan Singh and Others v. New Delhi
G Municipal Corporation and Others, [1989) 4 sec 155, referred to.

1.3. As the hawkers have a fundamental right under Article·l9
.(1) (g) of the Constitution of India it would not be correct to
unreasonably restrict such a right, except under circumstances set out
H in the guidelines laid down by the Court in the Bombay Hawkers Union's
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. 583

case and other reasonable restrictions. The correct approach should A
be to ascertain/earmark areas where, as per the guidelines, hawking
cannot be permitted. Thereafter all other areas/streets must be hawking
zones. (596-G-H; 597-A-B)

Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985)
3 sec 528, referred to. B
2. If properly regulated the small traders can considerably add
to the convenience and comfort of the general public, by making
available ordinary articles of everyday use for a comparatively lesser
price. (596-D) C
3. The Court is not really equipped to go through the scheme
street by street. It would be preferable that the Court approves the
conditions of the scheme and .certain roads/streets on which hawking
is to be permitted. Then a Committee must be appointed and modalities
laid down under which the Committee is to function. The Committee D
can hear interested parties and consider their representations. The
Committee can decide whether any particular road/street is to be
declared as a non-hawking zone. (597-B-C)

[The court laid down several restrictions and conditions on which the E
hawkers could do business.} ·

4.1. A Committee consisting ofa retired Judge of the Bombay City
Civil Court at Bombay (to be nominated by the Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court), who shall be the Chairman of the Committee,
a senior officer of Bombay Municipal Corporation (who shall be F
nominated by the Municipal Commissioner) and a senior police officer
from the traffic department (who shall be nominated by the Police
Commissioner) is appointed. Any person or organisation who feels,
that roads/streets, from those designated as non-hawking zone, are
suitable for hawking, may apply to this Committee, for having the G
road/street designated as a hawking zone. Similarly any person or
organisation who feels that any road/street designated as hawking zone
should be a non~hawking zone may apply to the Committee for having
that road/street designated as a non-hawking zone. (602-C-F]

4.2. The Committee.shall cause a notice to be placed in the concerned H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A ward office and in prominent places on that road/street foviti~g
objections/suggestions in respect of the proposals made to it by any person/
organisation. Undoubtedly the Committee shaH visit the road/street and
also hear all concerned parties including residents associations, shop
owners on that road/street etc. The Committee shall then decide how
B many hawkers can be accommodated on that road/street if it is to be a
hawking zone. It is clarified that merely because in the scheme, as
sanctioned, an area has been shown as a hawking zone or a non-hawking
zone, will not preciude the Committee from considering whether hawking
can be permitted on that road/street. The Committee shall ensure that
the criteria laid down in the scheme are fulfilled before a road/street is
C declared as a hawking zone and that if all the criteria are met then the
road/stre.et is notkept.outofa hawking zone. In the event ofany difference
;between :the Committee members, the ,decision of the Chairman of the
Committee shall .prevail. The decision of the Committee shall be final
.and ,binding on all. (602-G-H; 603-A-C]
D
4.3. Bombay Municipal Cor.poration shall give wide publicity in
the City of Mumbai and invite applications for allocation of licences.
Each application must state the area, where a pitch is sought and the
type of items proposed to be sold. Each applicant can give a choice of
not more .than three locations. All applications .will be .categorised road/
E street wise. If the number of applicants, for a road/street, do not exceed
the number of hawkers who can be accommodated on that road/street,
then licences will be issued to them on receipt of.requisite license fee.
If the number of applicants are more than the number of places
available then those applications will be placed before the Committee.
F The Chairman of the Committee shall then allotlicences on the basis
of a draw oflots by him. Those who do ·not get the licence will be placed
on a waiting list. As and when any other road/street gets declared as
a .hawking zone, .lots will be drawn .from \the .wait list and ,places
allotted. (604-A--C]

G 4.4. The_principle that all major, trunk and arterial roads should
automatically be excluded from hawking zones is not approved. The
committee-will·be entitled to examine, on receiptofa proposal whether
hawking can be permitted on such roads. If without too much
hindrance to vehicular and pedestrian traffic hawking can be permit-
H ted, it must be so permitted. (601-D-'E)
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. 585

5. The finding of the High Court that hawking plazas are not to A
be permitted is not approved of. It will be open for the Bombay
Municipal Corporation to set up hawking plazas. However, when
Bombay Municipal Corporation sets up a hawking plaza. the allotment
of 1 mt. X 1 mt. pitches in those hawking plazas must be made on the
above terms and conditions including no fixed site, timing from 7 a.m. B
to 10 p.m. etc. and only by issuing advertisements in three local
newspapers. Out of the applications received the allotment must be by
draw oflots by the Chairman of the committee. Even in hawking plazas
the licence should not exceed one year. (601-F-G)

6. Apart from 187 roads approved by the High Court, 49 C
additional roads meet all the criteria laid down in the scheme and can
be in~luded in the hawking zones. Therefore, 236 roads are approved
as hawking zones. Even though a road may be within hawking zone
the restrictions, set out in the scheme regarding distances from railway
stations, hospitals, educational institutions, places of worship etc. on D
that road, if any, would continue to apply. (597-E-F, G-H; 598-A)

7. The scheme framed and the guidelines would not be applicable
to hawkers who do not sit in any one place but who travel from place
to place carrying their wares with them. However, even such hawkers
shall be required to obtain a licence on payment of prescribed fees and E
display that license on their shirt/coat at all times. Such hawkers will
·he allowed even in residential areas and areas where there are no
shop_ping lines. They shall not sell costly items and will only vend
articles of immediate requirement i.e. articles of convenience shopping.
They shall not hawk within 100 meters ofany place of worship, of any F
municipal or other markets or from any railway station. (603-E-F)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4156-
4157 of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.2000 of the Bombay High
G
Court in W.P. No. 621 of !999.
.
<
WITH

C.A. Nos. 4158-59, 4161-62, 4163-64; 4160, 4170-71, 4167-69/ H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A 2002, C.P. Nos. 456-58/2002 in C.A. Nos. 4167-69/2002, 4165-4166,
4175-76, 4179-80, 4172-74/2002, C.P.(C) Nos. 195-196/2002, C.A. Nos.
4178, 4177/2002, 9662, 9661, 9663, 9666, 9667 of 2003.

Vijay Hansaria, V.N. Ganpule, Bhimrao Naik, J.F. Pochkhanawala
and A.K. Panda, Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Ms.
B Ruchi, A.P. Dhamija, Anand Grover, S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Bharat
Sangal, M.N. Shroff, Jayesh K. U., Sunil Kumar Jain, Shakil Ahmed Syed,
Ashok Kum~r Singh, Sushi! Karanjkar, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,
Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Vijay Kumar, Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Aparna, Bhat,
Vipin M. Benjamin, P. Ramesh Kumar, Pallav Shishodia, D.N. Mishra,
C Hemant Sharma, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, V. Ramasubramanian, Jamshed
Mistry, Senthil Jagadeesan, S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Ms. Nandini
Gore, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, Ms. Anjali Jha, A. K. Raina and
P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Rubi Singh Ahuja for the appearing.parties.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.N. V ARIA VA, J. ·Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
-
-

All these Appeals are against the Judgments of the High Court dated
5th July, 2000 and 3rd May, 2001. The facts leading up to these Appeals
E are that as far back in 1983 a number of Writ Petitions were filed in this
Court, by and on behalf of a large number of persons who carried on
hawking activities in Bombay. These Petitions came to be disposed of by
Judgment of this Court in the case of Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation reported in [1985] 3 SCC 528. By this Judgment,
F it was held that the right to carry on trade or business conferred by Article
l 9(2)(g) of the Constitution of India is subject to the provisions of sub-
clause (6) of Article 19 which provided that 'nothing in sub-clause {g) of
Arcicle 19(1) would affect the operation of any existing law insofar as .it
imposed, or prevented the State from making any law imposing, in the
G interests of general public, reasonable restriction~ on the exercise of the
right conferred by the said sub-clause. It was held that no one had any right
to do his or her trade or business so as to cause nuisance, annoyance or
inconvenience to the other members of the public. It was held that public
streets, by their very nomenclature and definition, were meant for the use
of the general public. It was held that the public streets are not laid to
H facilitate the carrying on of private trade or business. It was held that if
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION'" MUNICIPAL CORPN. [VARIAVA,J.] 587

hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them they could hold A ·
the society to ransom by squatting on the center of busy thoroughfares,
thereby paralyzing all civic life. It was recognized that in some of the parts
of the city the hawkers had made it impossible for the pedestrians to walk ·
on footpaths or even on the streets. This Court then examined the scheme
proposed by the Municipal Commissioner and laid down certain modalities B
for hawking and non-hawking zones. This Court also accepted the
. restrictions/conditions proposed by the Municipal Commissioner, except
for some changes. This Court then directed the Municipal Commissioner
to frame a final scheme on the guidelines suggested by it.

The above mentioned Judgmerit was delivered on 3rd July, 1985. On C
12th August, 1986 Bombay Municipal Corporation (for short BMC)
approved some guidelines. It then constituted an Advisory Committee
composed of officials of the Corporation, representatives of the Residents'
Association, NGO's, elected representatives of the Traffic Police and
representatives of the hawkers. A draft scheme was framed on 12th August, D
1996. Under the draft scheme 488 zones were shown as hawking zones.
Under the draft scheme 49,000 hawkers were to be accommodated. Under
the draft scheme 28 sites, in different wards, were earmarked for construc-
tion of hawkers' plazas. Under the draft scheme highways, arterial and
trunk roads, footover bridges, subways, certain distance around railway E
stations, certain radius around municipal markets, religious places, educa-
tional institutions, medical institutions and large traffic junctions, were
totally banned for hawkers. BMC also got undertaken a survey by Tata
Institute of Social Sciences and Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action.
This survey disclosed that there were approximately 1,03,0000 hawkers out F
of which I 5,000 were Iicenced hawkers and approximately 22,000 were
issued daily receipts or 'pautis' under a Scheme known as 'Unauthorized
Occupation cum Refuse Removal Charges'.

A number of Writ Petitions came to be filed in the Bombay High
Court challenging various aspects of the Scheme. In these Writ Petitions G
a number of interim Orders were passed. We are not really concerned with
those orders except that, on 30th November, I 988, a statement was made
on behalf of BMC that the scheme framed by them was only a draft scheme
and that BMC would consider representations from all and would suitably
modify the scheme. It must be mentioned that in an affidavit filed by BMC H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A it was disclosed that between August 1998 till April 1999, by issuance of
'pautis' BMC had collected Rs. 2,70,14,162.

BMC filed a modified scheme before the Court on 31st July, 1999.
By this modified scheme the number of hawking zones were brought down
B· from 488 to 377. The number of hawkers who could be now accommo-
dated were 38,000. The proposal for constructi~n of hawking plazas, on
28th sites, stood deleted. On 1st March, 2000 the High Court constituted
a Committee composed of the Additional Municipal Commissioner in-
charge of the scheme, one K.D. Kagtala, Advocate on behalf of the
C Bombay Hawkers' Association, one V.R. Bhandare, Advocate for some of
the Residents' Associations and Smt. Neera Punj, Convenor, Citizens'
Forum for protection of Public Places. This Committee heard and consid-
ered representations from various persons. It then identified area/roads
which could be hawking zones and which were to be non-hawking zones.
The Committee hereafter made its recommendations. Now the hawking
D zones were reduced to 187. The High Court by the impugned Judgment
dated 5th July, 2000 sanctioned the scheme with a few modifications and
adjourned the mater to enable BMC to consider the manner in which it
proposed to implement the scheme. The basic features of the scheme as
framed by the High Court are as under :
E J
"(a) Hawkers cannot be allowed to have a fixed place of business
or else there would be no distinction left between hawkers
and those ordinarily understood as trades.

(b) The exclusion, of arterial roads, pavements, carriage
F wayS, approaches to railway stations, places of worship and
schools, as also roads with less than 8.5 meters width, from_
areas which could be declared as 'hawking zones' was
approved.

G (c) It was clarified that the Development Control Regulations
for Mumbai would also be applicable with the result that no
trading or commercial activities could be carried out in
exclusively residential zones. It was also held that no such
activities could be carried on roads and pavements which did .
H· not have a shopping line.
MAHARASIITRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [VARIAVA, J.] 589

(d) It was directed that 15,000 licenced hawkers found to be A
operating in the city in 1997 would be permitted to carry on
hawking and after they were so accommodated, the others
could be permitted to hawk in the remaining areas of zones
by the method of drawings lots. On the drawing oflots, those
selected would be considered for issuance of licence. Li-
B
censed hawkers would be permitted to ply their trade in
hawking zones. Unlicensed hawkers would not be permitted
at·all.

(e) BMC's proposal to allow pitches of 1 m x 1 m space for
hawking was not allowed, on the ground that it would defeat c
the purpose of the scheme and make the right to hawk a
heritable or transferable right. It was also not allowed as the
number of hawkers would have to be restricted keeping in
mind the requirement to have smooth flow of traffic and
minimizing nuisance caused by hawkers. D
(f) BMC was called upon to consider making a rule whereby
hawkers could ply their trade on one side of the road on even
days.

mo\ (g) Sale of solid food items was prohibited but sale ofjuices was E
permitted.

(h) Vending of costly items such as electrical appliance, video
and audio tapes was not to be allowed. It was observed that
ordinarily hawkers are only supposed to deal with articles of F
immediate requirement and/or 'convenience shopping'.

(i) Implementation of the scheme was to be on a 'war footing'.
Involvement of public spirited organizations and citizens
was call:_d for. It was suggested that the pattern followed by
the Civil Defence Organisation under which wardens were G
appointed to take care of st!'eets, lanes and by lanes in every
~ard be adopted.

(j) Existing shop keepers were also required to participate in
keeping non-hawking zones free from hawkers with the help H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of security or manpower.

(k) A systematic phase-wise removal and demolition operation
was suggested in different parts of the city.

(I) The Court disapproved of the idea of hawking plaza on the
B ground that it automatically gave the shopkeepers heritable/
transferable in the space allotted to them and also because
the Court felt that the idea of hawking was lost if customer
had to go to the plaza.

C Thereafter, on 7th September 2000 the High Court permitted cooked food
to be sold by the hawkers.

Special Leave Petitions were then filed in this Court. While these
Special Leave Petitions were pending BMC moved the Bombay High
D Court for certain modifications. The High Court, by its Order dated 22nd ..
November 2000 clarified that only small changes would be permissible.
BMC then filed an affidavit dated 31st January 2001 suggesting changes
!n the light of representations received by it. On 3rd May 2001 the High
Court rejected the proposed modifications on the ground that the proposed
modification in effect amounted to i:eframing the sanctioned scheme.
E
The Scheme framed by the High Court is questioned before this
Court. It now besomes necessary to consider what was held. by this Court
in the Bombay Hawkers' Unions' case (supra). In that case, the Municipal
Commissioner had suggested framing of a scheme on the following terms:
F "As per the provision of the section 6l(o) of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, the removal of obstruction and
-:projections in or upon streets, bridges and other public places is
an °obligatory duty of the Corporation. The hawkers with their
stalls or the objects which they sell and which they exhibit in the
G stalls or on the roads/pavements, constitute an obstruction/projec-
tion in or upon streets and other public places. Their removal is
therefore, an obligatory duty of the Corporation. Having regard
to our resources human, physical and financial, it is, however,
obvious that we will not be able to fully discharge this duty and
H remove the obstruction/s projections caused by hawkers on every
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNIONv. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [VARIAVA, J.] 591

road, lane or pavement in the entire City of the Greater Bombay. A
We should, therefore, decide that within the constraints of our
resources, we would concentrate on removal of such obstructions/
projections on certain streets and public places where the pedes-
trians or vehicular traffic is most intense and where any obstruc-
tion/projection on the street or pavement is likely to cause great B
harms to public interest and cause nuisance. For example, the
toads leading from suburban railway stations to the residential
areas in the suburbs or the roads in the Central Business District
in South Bombay connecting the suburban railway station with
the offices and other places of the work as also certa~n arterial C
roads on which major goods and public transport vehicles move,
could be considered as important roads and pavements where no
hawkers should be allowed to do their business. No doubt, at
present, on these roads/areas too, there are existing hawkers who
were given licences in the past but who now do constitute an
obstruction to the free and safe flow of the pedestrian and D
vehicular traffic. It will be possible to remove ~hese licensed
hawkers by giving them alternative sites.

Thus having regard to the resources of vehicles, staff etc. at
our disposal, we could identify in the each Ward the streets/areas E
where intensive removal action again:>t unauthorised hawkers
should be taken. This shall not, however, mean that hawking in
other areas will be freely permitted. In areas other than the areas
identified from time to time, having regard to the resources
available and the dynamic situation, for intensive removal action,
if hawkers do their hawking business without seriously affecting F
the vehicular and/or pedestrian traffie or causing nuisance they
may be tolerated by sufferance· and a daily fee at the rate of Rs.
3 per day from a male hawker and at the rate of Re. I per day
from a female hawker may be recovered without prejudice to our
right to remove them should the dynamic situation and the G
changed circumstances so demand in future. It should be made
explicitly clear at the back of the receipt given for the fees
recovered that the collection of the fee shall. not be deemed to
confer any rignt whatsoever on the hawker concerned to do his/
her hawking business at the site concerned. H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A The following restrictions/conditions shall be imposed ·on
such hawkers :

(i) They should do their hawking business only on an area of
1 Mt x l Mt. on the footpath wherever it exists or on the
extreme side of the carriage way, in such a manner that the
B vehicular and pedestrian tariff is not obstructed and access
to shops and residence is not blocked.

(ii) They should not put any stall or place any table, stand or
such other thing or erect any type of structure whatsoever
c on the pitch on which they are conducting their hawking
business nor should they hawk, on handcarts. They should
also not put up any cloth, plastic sheets, chaddar, tarpaulin
etc. as shelter.
_,.....
(iii) They should not hawk within I 00 metefs;from any place of
D
worship, holy shrine, educational institution and general
hospital and within the periphery of J50 meter from any
Municipal or other market.

(iv) They should not create any noise for attracting the public/
E customers. •
'>
(v) They should not hawk any cooked food articles,· cut fruits
etc.

(vi) They should do their hawking business only between 7 a.m.
F and 9 p.m. on the day on which the prescribed daily fee is
recovered. In other words, payment of the prescribed daily
fee shall not be deemed to authorise them· to do ·their
hawking business beyond the aforesaid hours.

G (vii) They should extend full co-operation to Municipal conserv-
ancy staff for cleaning the streets and footpaths and also to
other Municipal staff for carrying out any Municipal work.
They should also co-operate with the other Government and
public 3gencies such as the B.E.S.T .. Undertaking Bombay
H Telephones B.S.E.S. Ltd. etc. for laying cables or for doing
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [VARIAVA, J.] 593

any repair/development work. A
(viii) Recovery of prescribed daily fee shall not bestow on them
any right whatsoever over the space used by them for
hawking on the day on the which the fee is recovered."

B
This Court held that no exception could be taken to conditions (i), (ii), (iii),
(iv), (vii) and (viii). This Court also held that in condition (ii) the words
"they should not put up any stall or place any table, stand or such other
thing or erect any type of structure whatsoever on the pitch on which they
are conducting their hawking business nor should they hawk on handcarts"
may stand. This Court further clarified that the condition that "they should C
also not put up any cloth, plastic sheet, chaddar, tarpaulin etc. as shelter"
should not be construed to mean that the hawkers are riot entitled to protect
their wares against the sun, rain or wind. This Court clarified that the object
of Condition (ii) was only to ensure that no construction was put up and
no handcarts were used. This Court also clarified that so far as Condition D
(viii) was concerned the fact that daily fees were charged would not confer
upon the hawkers the right to do business on any particular place. It was
clarified that the fee was a kind of licence fee to do business and it was
not a fee charged for doing business at any particular place. This Court
further held that the condition (v) was a unreasonable restrictions. This E
Court saw no reasons why the hawkers should not be allowed to sell ~ooked
food, cut fruits and th.e like. This Court clarified that It did not mean that
adulterted or unhygienic food could be sold. This Court held that hawk• rs
had to comply with the Municipal licensing regulations and the provisions
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This Court lastly
extended the business hours from 7 a.m. to I 0 p.m. This Court then laid F
down following modalities :

"(a) As far as possible, there should be one Hawking Zone for
every two contiguous Municipal Wards in Greater Bombay.
G
(b) The Non-Hawking zones may be fixed by the Municipal
Commissioner i~ his discretion, in consultation with the
Bombay Municipal Corporation.

(c) In areas other than the Non-Hawking Zones, licences should H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A be granted to the hawkers to do their business on payment
of the prescribed fee. That will be without prejudice to the
right of the Commissioner to extend the limits of the Non-
. Hawking Zones in the interests of public health, sanitation,
safety, public convenience and the like.
B
(d) Hawking licences should not be refused in the Hawking
Zones except for goods reasons. The discretion not to grant
a hawking licence in the Hawking Zone should be exercised
by the Commissioner reasonably and in public interesf.

c (e) In future, before making any alteration in the scheme, the
Commissioner should take into confidence all public inter-
ests, including the hawkers, the Commissioner of Police and
representative associations of the public such as the one
which appeared before us. Hawkers have the right to do their
D business, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of
the general public. The Police C0mmissioner is in the best
position to speak about the law and order problem as well
as the traffic hazards created by street trading. The general
public has a stake in showing how and why the hawking
E trade should be regulated. The power conferred upon the
Commissioner by Section 313-A of the Act to grant licences
to hawkers is in the nature of a discretion coupled with a
duty. It is therefore essential that the said power should be
exercised by consulting all concerned interests and guided
by considerations of what is in the interests of the general
F public. The scheme framed by the Commissioner will have
a binding effect on all concerned. The scheme shall be
framed, as far as possible, before October 31, 1985."

It must be mentioned that this Judgment was delivered by Chief
G Justice Chandrachud (as he then was). Immediately thereafter a Constitu-
tion Bench of this Court, headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud (as he then
was) delivered a Judgment in the case of Olga Tellis and Other v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation and others reported in [1985] 3 SCC 54·5, This case
dealt with the rights of pavement dwellers in Bombay. On behalf of the
H hawkers strong reliance was placed on various observations made in this
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION'" MUNfCIPAL CORPN. [VARIAVA, J.] 595

Judgment. It was submitted that this case showed that the right to hawk A
was also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
However such an argument has been negatived by this Court in the case
of Sadan Singh and Others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others
reported in [1989] 4 SCC 155. This case dealt with hawkers in the city of
Delhi. It was held that the hawking on roadsides fell within the expression B
"occupation, trade or business" in Article 19( 1)(g) Lut lhat it was subject
to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.
It was held that this right was specifically for poor hawkers and not for
sellers of luxury items or goods. It was further held that hawkers had no
right to occupy any particular place on the pavement nor could they assert
right to occupy permanently specific places demarcated on the pavement. C
It was held that the Municipality had a right to regulate such businesses
and the Municipality was directed frame rules and schemes regarding street
trading. It was also recognized that hawking could be totally prohibited in
certain areas. The Court negatived an argument, based on Olga Tellis 's case
that the hawkers had a fundamental right under Article 21. It was held that D
the right to carry on trade or business was not covered by Article 21 and
the hawkers could claim no right under Article 21. It was inter-alia held
as follows :

"So far as right of a hawker to transact business while going from E
place to place is concerned, it has been admittedly recognized for
a long period. Of course, that also is subject to proper regulation
in the interest of general convenience of the public including
health and security considerations. What about the right to squat
on the roadside for engaging in trading business? As was stated
by this Court in Bombay Hawkers ' Union v. Bombay Municipal F
Corporation - the public streets by their nomenclature and
definition are meant for the use of the general public; they are not
laid to facilitate the carrying on the private business. If hawkers
were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold
the society to ransom by squatting of the busy thoroughfares, G
thereby paralyzing all civil life. This is one side of the picture.
On the other hand, if properly regulated according to the exigency
of the circumstances, the small traders on the sidewalks can
considerably add to the comfort and convenience of general
public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A a comparatively lesser price."

Thereafter this Court passed ·various orders accepting/modifying
recommendations of the Committee appointed to. consider to whom
licences were to be granted, how licences were to be granted and the places
B where hawking could be permitted.

The above authorities tnake it clear that the hawkers have la right
under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India. This right however is
subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). Thus hawking may
not be permitted where e.g. due to narrowness of road free flow of traffic
c or movement of pedestrians is hindered or where for security reasons an
areas is required to be kept free or near hospitals, places of worship etc.
There is no fundamental right under Article 21 to carry on any hawking
business. There is also no right to do hawking at any particular place. The
authorities also recognize the fact that if properly regulated the small
D traders can considerably add to the convenience and comfort of the general
public, by making available ordinary articles of everyday use for a
comparatively lesser price. The scheme must keep in mind the above
principles. So far as Mumbai is concerned the scheme must complfwith
the conditions laid down in the Bombay Hawkers Union's case. Those
E conditions have become final and there is no changed circumstance which
necessitates any alteration.

As has already been mentioned hereinabove a draft scheme was
prepared pursuant to the Judgment of this Court· in the Bombay Hawkers
F Union's case. In the initial scheme the number of hawking zones were
shown as 488, they were then brought down to 377 and ultimately have
been reduced to 187 as per the scheme framed by the Bombay High Court.
Under the Scheme sanctioned by the Bombay High Court only 22,000
hawkers can be accommodated. Even as per the survey carried out by BMC
there. were over 1,03,000 hawkers in the city of Bombay. Out of this there
G were 15000 licenced hawkers and app. 22000 hawkers who had been
issued pautis (receipts) under a scheme initiated in 1988' and known as
'unauthorised Occupation cum Refuse Removal Charges'. As it has already
been held that the hawkers have a fundamental right under Article 19( l )(g)
it would not be correct. to unreasonably restrict such a right, except under
H circumstances set out in the guidelines laid down by this Court in ·the
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION"· MUNICIPAL CORPN. (VARIA VA, J.] 597

Bombay Hawkers Unions' case and other reasonable restrictions set out A
hereafter. In our view the correct approach should be to ascertain/earmark
areas where, as per the guidelines, hawking cannot be permitted. Thereafter
all other areas/streets must be hawing zones.

We have, during. the course of arguments, tried to go through the B
scheme street by street. However on a re-consideration it appears to us that
this Court is not really equipped to undergo this exercise. In our view_ it
would be preferable that this Court approve the conditions of the scheme
and certain roads/streets on which hawking is to be permitted. The, as in
Sadan Singh's case, a committee must be appointed and modalities laid
down under which the committee is to function. The committee can hear C
interested parties and consider their representations. The committee can
decide whether any particular road/street is to be declared as a non-
hawking zone. We therefore confine ourselves to laying down the basic
features of the scheme, appointing a committee and laying down the.
modalities for functioning of the committee. D
At this stage it must be mentioned that we had by order dated l st May
2003 permitted parties to make suggestions as to which additional areas
can become hawking zones. A number of suggestions had been made. We
are told that BMC is agreeable to include 51 more roads as hawking zones. E
We have considered submissions of Mr. Divan on why these additional
roads should not be added to the 187 already approved by the Bombay
High Court. In our view 49 of these additional roads meet all the criteria,
set out hereafter, and can be included in the hawking zones. Therefore to
start with we approve the 187 + 49 roads as hawking zones. The roads we
have excluded are Pandey Road in A Ward and Deodhar Road in FIN ward F
as they appear to be residential areas with no shopping line. We further
clarify that amongst these 49 roads there are some roads e.g. Mahatma
Gandhi Marg in A Ward which are already-included in the hawking zones
but on which· BMC now proposes to accommodate additional hawkers.
Whilst doing so BMC will ensure that there is no impediment or hindrance G
to vehicular traffic or pedestrians. The approval of these 49 roads is subject
to approval/NOC from the traffic police. It must also be clarified that even
though a road may be within a hawking zone the restrictions, s~t out
hereunder, regarding distances from railway stations, hospitals, educational
institutions, places of worship etc. on the road, if any, would continue to H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A apply.

The restrictions/conditions on which the hawkers shall do the business
are :

(l) an area of I mtr x I mtr on one side of the footfath wherever
B they exist or on an extreme side of the carriage way, in such
a manner that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic is not
obstructed and access to shops and residence is not blocked.
We further clarify that even where hawking is permitted, it
can only be on one side of the footpath or road and under
c no circumstances on both sides of the footpaths or roads. We
however clarify that Aarey/Sarita stalls and sugar cane
vendors would require and may be permitted an area of more
than I Mt. by I Mt. but not more than 2 mt. by I Mt;

(2) Hawkers must not put up stalls or place any tables, stand or
D such other thing or erect any type of structure. They should
also not use handcarts. However they may protect their
goods from the sun, rain or wind. Obviously this condition
would not apply to Aarey/Sarita stalls;

E (3) There should be no hawking within I 00 meters from any
place of worship, holy shrine, educational institutions and
hospitals or within 150 meters from any municipal or other
markets or from any railway station. There should be no
hawking on foot-bridges and over-bridges. Further certain
F areas may be required to be kept free of hawkers for security
reasons. However outside places of worship hawkers can be
permitted to sell items required by the devotees for offering
to the deity or for placing in the place of worship e.g.
flowers, sandalwood, candles, agarbattis, coconuts etc.;

G (4) The hawkers must not create any noise or play any instru-
ment or music for attracting the public or the customers;

(5) They can only sell cooked foods, cut fruits juices and the
like. We are unable to accept submission that cooking should
H be permitted. We direct that no cooking of any nature
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. [VARIAVA, J.] 599

whatsoever shall be permitted. Even where cooked food or A
cut fruits or the like are sold, the food must not be adulterated
or unhygienic. All municipal licensing regulations and the
provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must
be complied with;
B
(6) Hawking must be only between 7.00 am and 10.00 pm;

(7) Hawking will be on he basis of payment of a prescribed fee
to be fixed by BMC. However the payment of prescribed fee
shall not be deemed to authorize the hawker to do his
business beyond prescribed hours and wold not confer on the c
hawker the right to do business at any particular place;

(8) The hawkers must extend full cooperation to the municipal
conservancy staff for cleaning the streets and footpaths and
~ also to the other municipal staff for carrying on any munici- D
pal work. They must also cooperate with the other govern-
ment and public agencies such as BEST undertaking, Born-
bay Telephones, BSES Ltd. etc. if they require to lay any
cable or any development work;

(9) No hawking would be permitted on any street which is less
E
than 8 meters in width. Further the hawkers also have to
comply with Development Control Rules thus there can be
no hawking in areas which are exclusively residential and
where trading and commercial activity is prohibited. Thus
hawking cannot be permitted on roads and pavements which F
do not have a shopping line;

(10) BMC shall grant licences which will have photos of the
hawkers on them. The licence must be dis.,layed, at all times,
by the hawkers on their person by clipping it on the their G
shirt or coat;
.
(I I) Not !Ilore than one member of a family must be given a
.licence to hawk. For this purpose BMC will have to com-
puterize its records;
H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A (12) Vending of costly items e.g. electrical appliances, video and
audio tapes and cassettes, cameras, phones etc. are to be
prohibited. In the event of any hawker found to be selling
such items his licence must be cancelled forthwith.

(13) In areas other than the Non-hawking Zones, licences must
B be granted to the hawker~ to do their business on payment
of the prescribed fee. The licences must be for a period of
l year. That will be without prejudice to the right of the
Committee to extend the limits of the Non~Hawking Zones
in the interests of public health, sanitation, safety, public
c convenience and the like. Hawking licences should not be
refused in the Hawking Zones except for good reasons. The
discretion not to grant a hawking licence in the Hawking
Zone should be exercised reasonably and in public interest.

D (14) In future, before making any alteration in the scheme, the
Commissioner should place the matter before the Committee
who shall take a decision after considering views of all
concerned including the hawkers, the Commissioner of
Police and members of the public or an association repre-
senting public.

( 15) It is expected that citizens and shopkeepers shall participate
in keeping non hawking zones/areas free from hawkers.
They shall do so by brining to the notice of the concerned
ward officer the presence of a hawker in a non hawking
F zone/area. The concerned ward officer shall take immediate
steps to remove such a hawker. In case the ward officer takes
no action a written complaint may be filed by the citizen/
shopkeeper to the Committee. The Committee shall look into
the complaint and if found correct the Committee will with
the help of police remove the hawker. The officer in charge
G
of the concerned police station is directed to give prompt and
immediate assistance to the Committee. In the event of the
Committee finding the. complaint to be correct it shall
so record. On the Commit!:ee so recording an adverse remark
re-failure to perform his duty will be entered in the
H
MAHARASHTRAEKTAHAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPALCORPN. (VARIAVA, J.] 601

confidential record of the concerned ward officer. If more A
than three such eniries are found in the record of an officer
it would be a ground for withholding promotion. If more
than 6 such entries are found in the records of an officer it
shall be a ground for termination of service. For the work
of attending to such complaints BMC shall pay to the B
Chairman a fixed honorarium of Rs. 10,000 p.m.

(16) The scheme framed by us will have a binding effect on all
concerned. Thus apart from those to whom licenses will now
be issued, no other person/body will have any right to squat
or carry on any hawking or other business on the roads/ C
streets. We direct the BMC shall bring this judgment to the
notice of all Courts in which matters are now pending. We
• are quite sure that the concerned Court/s shall then suitably
vacate/modify its injunction/stay order.
D
We do not approve of the principle that all major, trunk and arterial
roads should automatically be excluded from hawking zones. The commit-
. tee will also be entitled to examine, on receipt of a proposal whether
hawking can be permitted on such roads. If without too much hindrance
to vehicular and pedestrian traffic hawking can be permitted, it must be E
so permitted. For example, we see no re'ason why hawking should not be
permitted on J. Tata Road or Barrister Rajni Patel Marg in A Ward. Of
course hawking cannot be permitted on these roads in the vicinity of
Sachivalaya and Vidhan Bhavan~ The Committee wiU consider whether
some portion of these roads can be declared as a hawking zone. We also
do not approve of the findings of the Bombay High Court that hawking f
plazas are not to be permitted. It will be open for the BMC to set up
hawking plazas. However when BMC sets up a hawking plaza the
allotment of I Mt. x IMt. pitches in those hawking plazas must be made
on the above terms and conditions including no fixed site, timing from
7 a.m. to I 0 p.m. etc. and only by issuing advertisements in three local G
newspapers, one in Marathi, one in HiCldi and one in English. Out of the
applications ·received the allotment must be by draw of lots by the
·• - Chairman of the Committee. Even in hawking plazas the licence should
not exceed one year. We were informed during hearing that at Andheri,
BMC has entered into an arrangement with some of the hawkers and H
.1

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A allotted them a place. In our view, such allotment was entirely unjustified
as inasmuch as it was against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court and
such allotment was made without making any advertisements or inviting
applications from all concerned. We see no substance in the argument that
this allotment was not as a hawking plaza and that therefore the Bombay
B High Court Judgment did not apply to it. If the allotment is not by way
of hawking plaza, BMC could not have, at its whims and fancies, allotted
only to a particular body of hawkers. It then necessarily had to first
advertise and invite applications and allot only by draw of lots. As in Court
it was fairly admitted that BMC had committed a mistake and will rectify
C it, we do not pass any orders in respect thereof.
I
We appoint a Committee consisting ofa retired Judge of the Bombay
City Civil Court at Bombay (to be nominated by the Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court), who shall be the Chairman of the Committee, a
senior officer of BMC (who shall be nominated by the Municipal
D Commissioner) and a senior police officer from the traffic department (who
shall be nominated by the Police Commissioner). For the present the
Officers will be deputed full time to work on the Committee. BMC shall
forthwith make available to the Chairman and the Committee all facilities
like office space, secretarial staff e~c. BMC shall also make available to
E the Chairman a chauffeur driven car which is to be used for this work only.
Any person or organization who feels, that roads/streets apart from those
designated as non hawking zones are suitable for hawking, may apply to
this Committee, for having that road/street designated as a hawking zone.
Similarly any person or organization wl:io feels that any road/street
designatP.d as hawking zone should be a none hawking zone may apply
F to the Committee for having that road/street designated as a non hawking
zone. The person or organization so applying must deposit along with the
application a sum of Rs. 1500 per road/street in respect of which they want
a decision. BMC shall add to that a sum of Rs. 1500 per road/street. The
sum of Rs. 3000 per road/street shall be handed over to the Chairman of
G the Committee as his honorarium. The Committee shall then cause a notice
to be placed in the concerned ward office and in prominent places on that
road/street inviting objections/suggestions in respect of that proposal.
Undoubtedly the Committee shall visit the road/street and also hear all
concerned parties including residents associations, shop owners in that
H road/street etc. The Committee shall then decide whether or not such road/
MAHARASHTRA EKTA HAWKERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. (VARIAVA, J.] 603

street should be a hawking zone or not. The Committee wiil also decide A
how many hawkers can be accommodated on that road/street if it is to be
a hawking zone. We clarify that merely because in the scheme, as
sanctioned, an area has been shown as a hawking zone or a non hawking
zone, will not preclude the Committee from considering whether hawking
can be permitted on that road/street. We have no doubt that the Committee B
shall ensure that the above mentioned criteria are fulfilled before a road/
· street is declared as a hawking zone and that if all the criteria are met then
that road/street is not kept out of a hawking zone. In the event of any
·difference between the Committee members, the decision of the Chairman
of the Committee shall prevail. The decision of the Committee shall be final C
and binding on all.

At one stage it was submitted that BMC would not have funds to meet
the payments suggested by us. We see no substance in this submission. As
set out hereinabove, between August 1998 and April 1999 BMC had
collected Rs. 2,70,14,162 from licence fees and by issuance of 'Pauties'. D
Now that they can charge licence fees, a large amount is going to be
collected by them. BMC shall keep apart, from the licence fees collected,
sums necessary for expending monies under this Judgment.

We clarify that the scheme framed above and the guidelines are not E
applicable to hawkers who do not sit in any one place but who travel from
place to place carrying their wares with them. However, even such.hawkers
shall require to obtain a licence on payment of prescribed fees and display
that licence on their shirt/coat at all times. Such hawkers will be allowed
even in residential areas and areas where there are no shopping lines. They F
shall not sell costly ite~s and will only vend articles of immediate
requirement i.e. articles of convenience shopping. They shall not hawk
within 100 meters of any place of worship, holy shrine, educational
institutions or hospital or within 150 meters of any municipal or other

• markets or from any railway station .

By Judgment dated 3rd May, 2001 certain suggestions regarding
cobblers have been accepted by the Bombay High Court. We confirm that
G

finding of the Bombay High Court, but clarify that the existing cobblers
pitches in non hawking zones can be continued. However no further
pitches can be added in non-hawking zones. H.
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A BMC shall now give wide publicity in the city of Mumbai and invite
applications for allocation of licences. Each application must state the area,
where a pitch is sought and the type of items proposed to be sold. Each
applicant can give a choice of not more than 3 locations indicating his l st,
2nd and 3rd choice. All applications will then be categorized road/street
B wise. If the number of applicants, for a road/street, do not exceed the
number of hawkers who can be accommodated on that road/street, then
licences will be issued to them on receipt of requisite licence fee. If the
number of applicants are more than the number of places available then
those applications will be placed before the Committee. The Chairman of
C the Committee shall then allot licences on basis of a draw of lots by him.
Those who do not get a licence will .be placed on a waiting list. As and
when any other road/street gets declared as a Hawking Zone, lots will be
drawn from the wait list and places allotted.

We realize that it will take some time for the above exercise to be
D completed. We hope that the above exercise shall be completed within 6 ~.

months from today. In the meantime licences may be issued and hawkers r

may be located in zones already approved by us by a draw of lots as
indicated above. We now adjourn these matters to 23rd July, 2004. On that
date BMC will inform us, on affidavit, how many more roads/streets have
E been declared as hawking zones and how many licences have already been
issued and how many more hawkers are likely to be accommodated. BMC
will also inform us how many and where they intend to locate hawking
plazas and by what date they hope to set them up.

B.K.M. Matter is pending.

·-
.,.,

'
t,..

r.•
\.