Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court has granted interim protection to 15 street vendors operating in and around Bengaluru’s Krishna Raja Market, popularly known as K.R. Market, restraining the civic authorities from taking precipitative action against them until August 31, 2026. Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad passed the interim order while considering Shri Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., W.P. No. 26107/2026, in which the petitioners challenged the eviction drive undertaken by the civic authorities as part of the ‘Safe Pedestrian Path Campaign’.
The campaign commenced across Bengaluru’s reorganised City Corporations on July 1, 2026, with the stated objective of removing obstructions from footpaths and other public spaces and ensuring safe and uninterrupted pedestrian movement. The authorities have maintained that the drive is particularly necessary in locations where street vending allegedly obstructs access for pedestrians, ambulances, fire engines, police vehicles and other emergency or official vehicles.
The petitioners, however, contended that they were not unauthorised encroachers but street vendors who had been carrying on their livelihood in the K.R. Market area pursuant to licences issued in 2017. Although those licences had subsequently expired, the vendors argued that their rights and claims had to be considered under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme, 2020.
The dispute therefore lies at the intersection of two competing public interests. On one side is the State’s obligation to maintain public roads, footpaths and open spaces in a manner that ensures safe pedestrian and emergency access. On the other is the statutory protection afforded to street vendors, whose right to pursue their livelihood is recognised within the framework of the 2014 Central legislation and the corresponding State scheme.
The petitioners approached the High Court after the civic authorities initiated the eviction exercise. They apprehended that they would be removed from their existing vending locations without first completing the statutory process contemplated under the Street Vendors Act and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme.
The vendors claimed that they had been operating from their respective locations for several years and that their earlier licences demonstrated official recognition of their vending activity. Their case was that the expiry of those licences could not, by itself, authorise immediate eviction without consideration of their applications for renewal or relocation.
They further argued that the statutory scheme contemplated a survey of street vendors and identification of appropriate vending areas through the Town Vending Committee. According to them, the authorities could not simply undertake an eviction drive without first completing the statutory process designed to identify eligible vendors and determine where vending could lawfully take place.
The Court, at the outset, sought clarification regarding the precise nature of the locations occupied by the petitioners. Justice Shyam Prasad questioned whether the vendors were operating on footpaths, in an open area or within a quadrangle. The Court also sought information regarding whether the vending activities were obstructing access to ambulances, fire engines, police vehicles or other emergency and official vehicles.
These questions reflected the Court’s attempt to balance the competing interests rather than grant an unconditional injunction in favour of the vendors. The Court recognised that street vendors may have a limited statutory right to carry on their livelihood, but such rights cannot be exercised in a manner that obstructs emergency access or creates serious public safety concerns.
The Court also took note of its earlier directions in a similar matter, W.P. No. 23709/2026, which had been disposed of shortly before the present proceedings. Those directions had recognised a limited right of street vendors while also acknowledging the civic authorities’ responsibility to clear public spaces where vending materially interferes with pedestrian or vehicular movement.
The civic authorities informed the Court that the eviction exercise was not intended merely to eliminate street vending. Their stated objective was to clear footpaths and open areas where vending was allegedly creating obstructions, particularly for ambulances, fire engines and transport vehicles.
The authorities further submitted that a temporary Town Vending Committee under the 2014 Act and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme, 2020 would identify and specify vending areas in four constituencies surrounding K.R. Market. Vendors who could not be permitted to continue at their present locations would thereafter be relocated in accordance with the process.
Another significant submission by the civic authorities concerned the validity of existing street vending certificates. The authorities stated that the certificates previously issued to street vendors had been withdrawn following allegations of fabrication, duplication and misuse. According to the authorities, fresh certificates would be issued after a proper survey.
Against this background, the High Court did not finally determine whether the 15 petitioners were entitled to continue vending at their existing locations. Instead, it granted temporary protection while requiring the Joint Commissioner of the Bengaluru Central City Corporation to place a clear position before the Court regarding whether the petitioners could lawfully remain where they were presently vending and whether they could participate in, or were entitled to participate in, the proposed survey exercise.
The interim order thus sought to preserve the petitioners’ position for a limited period while allowing the authorities to explain the legal and factual basis of their proposed action. The matter was adjourned to August 31, when the Court is expected to consider the parties’ respective positions further.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Angad Kamath, challenged the eviction action on the ground that the authorities could not remove them without following the statutory safeguards contained in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme, 2020.
The vendors asserted that they had been carrying on their trade in the vicinity of K.R. Market for several years and that they were not newcomers who had suddenly occupied public land. They relied upon licences issued to them in 2017 as evidence that their vending activities had previously been recognised by the authorities.
Although the licences had expired, the petitioners argued that expiry did not automatically extinguish every statutory protection available to them as street vendors. They maintained that the authorities were required to consider the legal framework governing renewal, relocation and identification of vending zones before taking coercive steps against them.
The petitioners particularly relied on the statutory survey mechanism. According to their submission, the Street Vendors Act establishes a structured process under which street vendors are surveyed and vending areas are identified. The Town Vending Committee plays an important role in determining vending zones and regulating the activity.
It was therefore argued that the civic authorities could not bypass the survey and committee process by simply commencing an eviction drive. In the petitioners’ view, the statutory protection would be rendered meaningless if vendors could be removed before their eligibility and vending status were properly assessed.
The petitioners further contended that applications for renewal or relocation had to be considered before they could be displaced. Their argument was that they should not be treated as ordinary encroachers when Parliament had enacted a specific legislation protecting the livelihood of street vendors and regulating their activity.
The petitioners also relied upon the Court’s earlier approach in the related proceedings concerning street vendors. They pointed out that the High Court had already recognised that vendors possess a limited right within the statutory framework and had balanced that right against the need to keep public spaces accessible.
At the hearing, the petitioners were also questioned about the exact nature of the places where they were vending. The Court sought to determine whether their vending locations were situated on footpaths or in open spaces or quadrangles and whether their presence actually interfered with emergency access.
The petitioners’ position was that they were occupying open spaces in the vicinity of K.R. Market and were not creating the kind of obstruction that would justify their immediate removal without the statutory process being completed.
The petitioners therefore sought protection against eviction until their status and entitlement could be examined in accordance with the Street Vendors Act and the Karnataka Scheme.
The respondents, including the State and civic authorities, defended the eviction drive as a legitimate exercise aimed at restoring pedestrian access and removing obstructions from public spaces.
The authorities explained that the ‘Safe Pedestrian Path Campaign’ had been commenced across Bengaluru’s reorganised City Corporations from July 1. The objective, according to them, was to ensure that footpaths and other public spaces remained available for their intended purposes and that pedestrians could move safely without being forced onto roads.
The authorities placed particular emphasis on emergency access. They submitted that vending activities in certain locations had created or could create obstructions for ambulances, fire engines, police vehicles and other official or transport vehicles. Where such obstruction existed, the authorities argued that they had a duty to intervene.
The respondents also disputed the suggestion that the eviction drive necessarily disregarded the statutory rights of street vendors. They informed the Court that a temporary Town Vending Committee would be constituted under the 2014 Act and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme, 2020.
According to the authorities, the temporary committee would identify and specify appropriate vending areas across four constituencies surrounding K.R. Market. Vendors who could not be permitted to remain at their existing locations could be relocated to other identified vending areas.
This, according to the respondents, demonstrated that the Government was not seeking to eliminate street vending altogether. Rather, the authorities were attempting to regulate it and reconcile vending activities with pedestrian safety and public access.
A further issue raised by the civic authorities concerned the street vending certificates relied upon by vendors. The authorities stated that all such certificates had been withdrawn because of alleged fabrication, duplication and misuse. Fresh certificates, according to their submission, would be issued after a proper survey.
The respondents therefore maintained that the petitioners could not rely mechanically on the 2017 licences when the authorities had subsequently questioned the authenticity and validity of vending certificates and had initiated a process for a fresh survey.
The authorities consequently urged the Court to allow the civic body to proceed with the campaign, particularly in locations where vending was found to obstruct public movement. Their position was that any protection granted to the vendors should not become a licence to construct permanent or temporary structures or obstruct essential services.
The competing arguments thus required the Court to consider both the statutory livelihood protections available to street vendors and the civic authorities’ obligation to maintain public spaces. The interim order reflects the Court’s attempt to preserve both interests rather than conclusively favouring one over the other.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad, after hearing the parties, granted interim protection to the 15 petitioners and directed that no precipitative action be taken against them until August 31, 2026.
The protection, however, was expressly made conditional. The petitioners were directed not to put up any temporary or permanent structures in the areas occupied by them. They were also required not to hinder access to ambulances, fire engines, police vehicles or other official vehicles.
The conditions imposed by the Court are significant because they demonstrate that the interim protection was not an unrestricted recognition of a right to occupy public space. The Court protected the vendors from immediate eviction while simultaneously ensuring that their presence would not interfere with essential public services or emergency movement.
The Court’s approach reflects the statutory balance inherent in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The legislation seeks to protect the livelihood of street vendors while also regulating street vending in public spaces. Recognition of a vendor’s livelihood interest does not therefore mean an unrestricted right to occupy any particular location.
The Court specifically sought clarity from the Joint Commissioner of the Bengaluru Central City Corporation on whether the petitioners could be permitted to continue occupying the precise locations shown in photographs placed before the Court.
This direction was important because the legality of street vending may depend not only upon the vendor’s status but also upon the character of the particular location. A vendor may have statutory protection as a street vendor, but the protection does not necessarily translate into an absolute right to vend at every location.
The Court therefore required the civic authority to examine the actual physical circumstances of the petitioners’ vending spots and state whether they could lawfully remain there.
The Joint Commissioner was also directed to clarify whether the petitioners could participate in, or were entitled to participate in, the proposed survey exercise.
This direction goes to the heart of the petitioners’ grievance. If the statutory survey is intended to identify and regulate street vendors, affected vendors must be considered within that process where the law so provides. The Court therefore sought an authoritative response from the civic body before deciding the petitioners’ longer-term position.
At the outset of the hearing, the Court’s questions concerning whether the vendors were occupying footpaths, open areas or a quadrangle also demonstrated the importance of factual precision. The nature of the location could materially affect the balance between the vendors’ livelihood interests and the public’s right to safe passage.
Similarly, the Court’s inquiry into emergency access was directly relevant. No statutory right to street vending can reasonably be understood as permitting obstruction of ambulances, fire engines or other emergency services.
The conditions attached to the interim protection therefore ensured that the petitioners could continue their livelihood temporarily without compromising these essential public interests.
The Court also took note of the civic authorities’ submissions in similar cases concerning the purpose of the eviction drive. The authorities had consistently maintained that the campaign was directed towards removing obstructions from footpaths and open spaces, particularly where vending interfered with access for emergency and transport vehicles.
The Court did not, at this stage, reject that objective. Instead, it sought to ensure that the enforcement process operated consistently with the statutory protections applicable to street vendors.
The Court’s reference to its earlier order in W.P. No. 23709/2026 was also significant. In that matter, the Court had recognised a limited right of street vendors while issuing directions concerning the regulation of vending activities.
The reference indicates that the Court was approaching the present dispute within an evolving body of orders concerning street vending in Bengaluru. Rather than treating street vendors as either completely protected or completely unauthorised, the Court recognised that their rights are subject to statutory regulation and the practical requirements of public access.
The civic authorities’ proposal to constitute a temporary Town Vending Committee was therefore also taken into consideration. The authorities stated that the committee would identify vending areas in four constituencies surrounding K.R. Market and relocate vendors who could not continue at their existing spots.
The Court’s interim approach leaves room for that regulatory process to operate. The protection granted to the petitioners is temporary and does not prevent the authorities from undertaking the statutory survey or determining appropriate vending areas.
At the same time, the authorities cannot use the eviction drive to bypass the statutory process if the petitioners are entitled to protection under the 2014 Act and the Karnataka Scheme.
The dispute regarding the withdrawal of existing street vending certificates also remains to be examined. The civic body informed the Court that certificates had been withdrawn because of alleged fabrication, duplication and misuse and that fresh certificates would be issued after a proper survey.
This issue may become significant at the subsequent stage because the petitioners rely upon licences issued in 2017. Whether those licences continue to have legal relevance, whether they were validly withdrawn, and what consequences follow from their expiry or withdrawal are matters that require proper consideration.
For the present, however, the Court was not required to conclusively determine the validity of those documents. The immediate concern was whether the petitioners should be exposed to eviction before their statutory position could be clarified.
The Court evidently considered that a temporary restraint was appropriate. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the existing position for a short period while obtaining a clear response from the civic authority.
The interim protection also prevents the petitioners from taking advantage of the Court’s order by expanding their occupation. The prohibition against putting up temporary or permanent structures ensures that the status quo is maintained rather than allowing the protected area to increase during the pendency of the proceedings.
Similarly, the prohibition against obstructing ambulances, fire engines, police vehicles and other official vehicles makes clear that the Court’s protection is subject to overriding public-safety considerations.
The order therefore does not grant an unconditional licence to vend. Instead, it creates a temporary legal space within which the petitioners’ rights can be examined without exposing them to immediate eviction.
The Court’s approach is particularly relevant because street vending often involves a direct conflict between livelihood and public-space management. Markets such as K.R. Market are commercially important and historically associated with street-level trade, but they are also high-traffic areas where pedestrian movement and emergency access can become difficult.
The Street Vendors Act attempts to address precisely this conflict by providing a regulatory mechanism rather than simply criminalising or eliminating street vending. The survey and Town Vending Committee mechanisms are intended to identify vendors and determine appropriate areas in which vending can take place.
The High Curt’s direction requiring the civic authority to clarify whether th