Introduction:
In a scathing critique of the Maharashtra government’s failure to curb the menace of illegal hawkers, the Bombay High Court, in a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL), directed the state to clarify whether it would comply with the court’s earlier orders to remove hawkers or allow people to take the law into their own hands. A division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata expressed their displeasure over the continued presence of illegal hawkers just opposite the Bombay High Court building, despite the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) having successfully removed them. The bench was particularly irked by the apparent inaction of the Mumbai Police, whose Beat Chowki was located a few steps away from where hawkers continued their illegal activities. The government lawyer, Poornima Kantharia, informed the court that the police were taking action, but the hawkers remained due to claims of having proper licenses. Justice Khata pointed out the contradiction between the police presence and the hawkers’ continued activities, asking if the officers were helpless. Justice Gadkari demanded that the government take a clear stand on the enforcement of the law, asserting that the state must uphold the rule of law or allow citizens to act as they wish. The bench also rejected petitions from hawker associations, stating that fundamental rights could not justify illegal activities. The court made it clear that years of illegal operation did not grant any right to hawkers to continue their business in public spaces, emphasizing that the lack of action had created chaos on Mumbai’s streets, particularly in areas like Malad and Kandivali. The matter was adjourned for further hearing until January 15, 2025.
The Bombay High Court, in a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL), dealt a blow to the Maharashtra government’s inability to curb the growing menace of illegal hawkers. The bench, consisting of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata, expressed their frustration with the inaction on the part of the Mumbai Police, who, despite the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) successfully removing the hawkers, failed to keep a strict vigil on the streets near the Bombay High Court. The issue was particularly glaring as the Beat Chowki, located just steps away from the site where illegal hawking continued, seemed ineffective in addressing the problem. The court raised concerns about the apparent contradiction between the BMC’s efforts to remove the hawkers and the police’s failure to ensure their removal, questioning whether the officers were helpless in enforcing the law. Justice Gadkari demanded that the state government take a definitive stance on whether it intended to uphold the law or let people disregard it altogether, warning that the government’s failure to act would undermine the rule of law.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The government, represented by Government Pleader Poornima Kantharia, defended the police’s actions, arguing that the officers were indeed taking action against illegal hawkers. However, the government’s lawyer explained that the hawkers who were still visible on the streets were reportedly those with licenses, according to the BMC. The argument was that the police were not turning a blind eye to the situation but were simply unable to act due to the legal status of some of the hawkers.
On the other hand, senior advocates for various hawker associations, including Gayatri Singh and Mihir Desai, had petitioned the court, arguing that their clients’ fundamental rights were being prejudiced by the actions of the authorities. They contended that the hawkers had a right to earn a livelihood and that their businesses were being wrongfully obstructed. However, the bench swiftly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the right to earn a livelihood could not be used as a justification for engaging in illegal activities. The court also pointed out that the lack of licenses and the failure to adhere to proper legal procedures for hawking meant that the hawkers’ activities were, in fact, illegal and could not be allowed to continue.
Court’s Judgment:
The bench was highly critical of the Maharashtra government’s failure to curb illegal hawking despite the court’s previous directions. The court noted that the street just opposite the Bombay High Court building, an area frequently used by lawyers and the general public, remained crowded with hawkers, despite BMC’s attempts to remove them. Justice Khata expressed concern about the systemic issue, observing that the situation was no better in other parts of the city, such as Malad and Kandivali, where hawkers dominated the streets, making it impossible for citizens to walk freely.
Justice Gadkari, in particular, admonished the Maharashtra government for its inaction, stating that the state needed to take a clear stance: either uphold the law and enforce the removal of illegal hawkers or allow citizens to disregard the law. He pointed out the contradiction between the presence of the Beat Chowki and the continued hawking activities. “What’s the use of that police chowki? The BMC is removing them (hawkers), but the police aren’t doing its job of keeping vigil,” Justice Khata remarked. The bench rejected the argument that the hawkers had fundamental rights to conduct business in public spaces, emphasizing that illegal activities could not be justified based on perceived long-standing practices.
The court further highlighted that the existence of a long-standing presence of hawkers in a particular area did not give them the right to continue hawking there. The bench stressed that the failure to take action against hawkers created immense chaos in the city, particularly in the Fort area and other parts of Mumbai. The judgment served as a stern reminder that illegal activities should not be perpetuated under the guise of tradition or livelihood.
In response to the argument that authorities could enforce regulations when they wished, as evidenced by the clearing of hawkers on December 5 for a VVIP event, the bench remarked that such selective enforcement only showcased the authorities’ reluctance to enforce the law consistently. The court adjourned the matter for further hearing until January 15, 2025, demanding a clear and firm response from the state government regarding its plans to address the illegal hawking issue.