MALKIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) To conceive of street vendors as units that can be removed or relocated at the 'drop of a hat' would be an incorrect use of power, either judicial or administrative. They are not solely economic units; they are people trying to earn an honest living in cities that often offer them few, if any, alternatives. For many, street vending is not a choice but a necessity that allows them to support their families, educate children, and survive in an increasingly expensive urban environment.

(3.) Problems arise when this balance is lost. Unregulated street vending can spill into residential neighbourhoods, footpaths, and roads, making everyday life harder for others. They should be able to walk safely on pavements, access their homes without obstruction, and enjoy public spaces without permanent encroachments. Public land being occupied indefinitely, without oversight, creates a sense of unfairness and fuels conflict. Recognising the right of vendors under Article 19 to carry out their trade cannot be equated to a right to set up shops anywhere and then claim ownership over that public space. If such a situation is countenanced both the rule of law and urban planning policies would go 'out the window'. The Constitution does not permit placing one group's rights over others; instead, it mandates that the State should mediate competing interests.