Saudan Singh and Ors. Etc. v. N.D.M.C. and Ors. Etc.
In short. The case of Saudan Singh and Others vs. N.D.M.C. and Others revolves around the rights of street hawkers in Delhi to conduct their trade on public pavements. The core issue was whether the refusal of municipal authorities to allow hawkers to trade on streets violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court ruled that while hawkers do not have a fundamental right to occupy specific places on pavements, they can carry on trade if it is properly regulated. The court emphasized that the state, as a trustee, has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on street trading.
Facts
The case arose from petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the actions of the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) that allegedly infringed upon the rights of pavement traders. The Constitution Bench had previously ruled in Sodan Singh & Others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Others that street trading could not be outright denied if regulated. Following this, the NDMC was directed to assess claims made by squatters and hawkers through the establishment of the Thareja Committee, which was tasked with identifying areas where street hawking could be permitted without obstructing pedestrian traffic.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The petitioners argued that their right to trade on public streets was protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. They contended that the municipal authorities' actions were arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights. The court acknowledged these arguments but clarified that while the right to trade exists, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and there is no absolute right to occupy specific locations on public property.
Respondent Arguments
The respondents, comprising the NDMC and MCD, argued that the regulation of street trading was necessary to maintain public order and safety. They contended that the streets were primarily meant for pedestrian use and that unrestricted hawking would lead to chaos and obstruction. The court found merit in this argument, stating that the state has the authority to impose limitations on the use of public spaces to ensure they serve their intended purpose.
Precedents considered
The court cited the earlier decision in Sodan Singh & Others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Others, which established that while hawkers have the right to trade, it is not absolute and can be regulated. This precedent was crucial in shaping the court's decision, as it reinforced the idea that the state can impose reasonable restrictions on street trading.
Legal principles
The court considered several legal principles, including
- Article 19(1)(g): The right to carry on trade or business.
- Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty, which the court clarified does not extend to a fundamental right to occupy specific places for trading.
- Reasonable Restrictions: The state’s authority to impose limitations on the exercise of fundamental rights for the greater public good.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that while the right to trade is fundamental, it must be balanced against the rights of the public to use streets safely and freely. The court emphasized that hawkers cannot claim a permanent right to occupy specific areas on pavements, and the state has the discretion to regulate street trading to prevent obstruction and maintain order.
Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the NDMC and MCD to regulate street trading and directed that the claims of genuine squatters and hawkers be assessed by the Thareja Committee. The court ordered that hawking could be permitted in designated areas, subject to regulation, and that new petitions from hawkers should be listed for final disposal.
Conclusion
This judgment has significant implications for the rights of street vendors in India, establishing that while they have the right to trade, it is not absolute and must be regulated to ensure public order. The decision underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers both the rights of hawkers and the interests of the public.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.