The Bombay High Court’s recent suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing the illegal hawking issue in Mumbai has sparked considerable concern and criticism regarding the handling of hawkers by the municipal authorities. The court expressed strong dissatisfaction after reviewing a report from Mid-Day that highlighted the significant impact of illegal hawkers on traffic, particularly in Borivli, where hawkers have been blocking roads and causing disruptions to BEST bus services.
Key Points from the Court Hearing:
- Focus on Illegal Hawkers: The court made it clear that its focus was on illegal hawkers, not licensed ones. The issue was raised after advocates representing hawker unions pointed out that licensed hawkers were often unfairly affected during eviction drives, alongside illegal ones.
- Categories of Hawkers: There are three categories of hawkers as defined by the court:
- Licensed hawkers: Those with vending certificates.
- Illegal hawkers: Those who do not possess certificates.
- Recognized but Uncertified hawkers: These hawkers are acknowledged in surveys but have not been issued official certificates. The court noted that this third category is especially vulnerable.
- Formation of the Town Vending Committee (TVC): The court directed the creation of an interim TVC to conduct a new survey of hawkers. This committee will oversee the regulation and management of hawking in the city. The TVC will be constituted through elections, but the previous TVC elections were stayed by the Supreme Court due to issues with incomplete voter lists.
- Role of Police and BMC: The Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has faced challenges in preventing hawkers from returning after being evicted. The court pointed out that despite the BMC removing hawkers, the police were often ineffective in preventing them from returning. Justice Kamal Khata emphasized that the police should actively ensure that hawkers do not come back once removed.
- Criticism of Authorities: The court criticized both the BMC and the state for failing to effectively control the situation. Justice Khata stated that despite measures such as beat marshals and police vans being in place, hawkers continue to return to the streets. He expressed frustration with the lack of enforcement, saying that hawkers have overwhelmed Mumbai’s streets, markets, and public areas.
- Expired Licenses: The BMC’s inspection reports were also criticized by the bar council, as many licenses shown in the reports were expired. The court highlighted that these expired licenses cannot be considered valid under the law.
- Implementation of the Street Vending Act: While the Street Vending Act (SVA) was meant to regulate hawking, the court observed that it has not been effectively implemented. This further exacerbates the issue of illegal hawkers operating in public spaces without proper regulation.
Reactions from the Public:
The issue has garnered significant attention on social media, with many netizens expressing their dissatisfaction with the authorities’ failure to address the problem effectively. Here are some reactions from users on X (formerly Twitter):
- Malhar (@BackchodGPT): “I have never dared to enter this lane in my car during the day. It’s only drivable late at night.”
- Fashionista (@IndianDamsel): “All parties are to blame—sellers, buyers & authorities. Pre-election cleanup happens, but it’ll worsen post Nov 24! Strict, permanent action needed!”
- Nilesh Saiya (@nksaiya): “We pay BMC property tax, income tax, GST, entertainment tax, and all other taxes for this?”
Many users shared similar frustrations, highlighting that the problem of hawking is not limited to Borivli but is prevalent across Mumbai and the surrounding metropolitan region (MMR). The inconsistency in enforcement and the apparent lack of action following evictions have left citizens disillusioned with the authorities’ inability to control the situation.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court has expressed significant frustration with the persistent problem of illegal hawking in Mumbai, questioning the effectiveness of the BMC and the police in managing and regulating hawkers. The court’s decision to focus on the formation of the Town Vending Committee and the regulation of hawkers through proper surveys and licenses signals the need for a more systematic and enforceable approach. However, the growing frustration among citizens and the media suggests that much more needs to be done to address the issue of illegal hawking, traffic congestion, and public nuisance in the city.
