While street vendors and activists acknowledged the positive impact of this scheme, they said that their livelihoods are far from secure as they continue to be under constant threat of eviction. This, even though 10 years have passed since the Street Vendors Act, which recognised street vending as a fundamental right to livelihood, came into force.

The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act received the President’s assent on March 4, 2014, after it was introduced by the erstwhile Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance government and passed by both houses of parliament. The law stipulated that no hawker could be evicted without conducting a city-wide survey and marking vending zones.

What does the law say?

Until the Street Vendors Act, 2014 was passed— after multiple court orders, including apex court verdicts and advocacy by rights groups— street vending was an ungoverned trade, and regulation meant only removing street vendors.

The Act directed authorities to conduct surveys and provide certificates to vendors on the following conditions:

* The Town Vending Committee conducts surveys of all vendors every five years.

* No eviction of street vendors will be allowed until the survey is conducted and a certificate of vending is issued.

* All vendors above 14 years of age are granted a certificate of vending, provided they meet certain conditions.

The law mandates the creation of designated vending zones. If all vendors cannot be accommodated in the same zone, space will be allocated by drawing lots. Vendors failing to get space in the same zone are accommodated in adjoining vending zones.

To get the certificate, vendors must undertake to conduct their business themselves or through family members, with no other means of livelihood. The transfer of the certificate is allowed only to a family member in case of death or permanent disability of the vendor, and breach of conditions may result in the cancellation of the certificate.

The Act also regulates vending in non-designated zones. Vendors in no-vending zones must be relocated to another area with a notice period of at least 30 days. Failure to vacate the space after notice may result in a penalty.

For enforcement and dispute resolution, authorities may physically remove vendors and seize goods from those who haven’t relocated. Vending without a certificate or contravening certificate conditions may result in a fine of ₹2,000.

Gaps in implementation

For implementation of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 at the municipality level, respective state governments had to notify the rules in line with the central law. However, activists said that different state governments have passed rules without adhering to the central law, which has meant that the street vendors are not benefiting as prescribed in the law.

As a remedy, activists are demanding that the Union government ensure that the Street Vendors Act, 2014 provisions are followed in letter and spirit across India to mark the 10th anniversary of the law’s passing.

“In every state, we are forced to fight for our rights. Every state and respective urban local bodies (ULB) enforce rules as and how they deem fit. We at all national and state-level associations need to work together to rectify the same,” said Asit Saha, working president of the Hawkers Joint Action Committee (HJAC).

Saha urged the ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA), which runs the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM), to run sensitisation and training programmes for bureaucrats and administrators about the law, alleging even municipal commissioners in many places are unaware of the provisions of this central law.

Aravind Unni, associated with the National Hawkers Federation and urban poverty thematic lead at Indo Global Social Service Society, a non-profit in Delhi that works with vulnerable communities to ensure their effective participation in development, said that the Street Vendors Act, 2014 was the first law to acknowledge street vendors as “not only illegal but valuable contributors”. Unni, too, said that the enabling environment is lacking and that MoHUA needs to facilitate the implementation of the Act at the lower levels of bureaucracy and governance. In the present context, ULBs lack the necessary capacity, bandwidth, and human resources to ensure that the Act can be implemented effectively, he added. “ULBs prioritise projects with more finance and funding from the government, such as the Swachh Bharat Mission. In contrast, the Street Vendors Act is complex and does not offer any added financial incentives,” Unni explained.

Continuing challenges

Members of the HJAC also pointed out that irregular or no elections have taken place to select members of town vending committees in many ULBs. In many towns and cities, there are no grievance redressal committees as mandated by the 2014 law.

Charan Singh, an HJAC activist based in Delhi, said, “The rules that the Delhi government is implementing contradict the central act. We urge that vending zones be demarcated in Delhi as soon as possible per the provisions of the law.”

Singh said that while street vending is conducted primarily during three times of the day – early in the day to afternoon, afternoon to evening, and evening to late hours in most places — the surveys were carried out only from 10 am to 6 pm. “This is why only 76,000 street vendors have been identified while the law mandates that up to 2.5% of the population is eligible to be identified as street vendors,” he said. (Delhi’s population is around 33 million in 2024).

Activists pointed out that in addition to the constant threat of evictions, hawkers are made to pay ‘protection money’ to the police and administrative officials or face legal proceedings. Suresh, a Bengaluru-based HJAC leader, said that in the Karnataka capital, there have been instances when street vendors have been booked under stringent laws like the Goonda Act. He urged the Union government to issue advisories to states to repeal all anti-street vendor laws.

HJAC said it is humanly impossible for 30-odd-member town vending committee(s) to carry out the entire identification survey in big cities. They demanded that the Union government carry out a digitally assisted national-level survey to identify street vendors. They said that until these issues are sorted out, schemes like PM SVANidhi and other schemes meant for street vendors won’t reach their intended beneficiaries.

Law and PM SVANidhi scheme can be complementary

PM SVANidhi brought the provision of micro credits, and digital payments brought vendors further into a formal fiscal structure.

The SVANidhi scheme offered micro-credit to vendors. Under the scheme, a vendor can avail of a loan of ₹10,000 and, upon repayment, can apply for a further loan of ₹20,000. After repaying the second loan, a beneficiary can apply for a third loan of ₹50,000. Regular repayments are incentivised with a 7% interest subsidy, and digital transactions are rewarded with cashback up to ₹1,200 per year.

Arbind Singh, national coordinator of the National Association of Street Vendors of India, pointed out another benefit of the PM SVANidhi scheme. He said the Union government issued a letter of recommendation (LoR) as part of the process to avail the loans, to those vendors who were not identified by the surveys. This gave those street vendors some legitimacy and helped them fight evictions by local officials and police, said Singh. “In Delhi, for instance, two lakh LoRs were given, while the survey by the town vending committee (as mandated under the Street Vendors Law) had identified only 76,000,” he added.

Soumya Chatterjee is a member and Mann Shaani, an intern, of the HT Urban Affairs team, which brings to you each week a story about where we live and how it affects the way we live.