In the bustling streets of Indian cities, the vendor is more than just a seller of goods; they are a purveyor of a way of life. Their cart more than just a moving store is their fixed capital, their warehouse, and the thing that keeps their family fed. Yet these vital clogs in the informal economy often face arbitrary actions from local authorities. A recent judgement of the Kerala High Court in Nisham v. Chavakkad Municipality & Ors. serves as a strong safeguard against the arbitrary action of state depriving a street vendor of his livelihood
1. The Case: A Livelihood Seized
The municipality of Chavakkad region, assisted by police confiscated the four-wheeled cart of the aggrieved consisting of 82 kilograms of fish and two electronic weighing scales on September, 29, 2024. The petitioner, who is a fish vendor, faced the destruction of his stock on the spot following a complaint that he was obstructing the pavement and operating without any trade license in a restricted zone. Alongside inappropriate behaviour with municipal officials. The municipality invoked Sec. 472 to 482 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 to justify the seizure and destruction of items. However, the petitioner contended that the action was taken without any warning, hearing, or following the rules set out in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, and its operational plan, the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019. The seizure was simply a quick eviction of his means of earning a living, which was a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Legal Analysis: Central Law Prevails
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. affirmed that the Street Vendors Act, 2014, which is a welfare legislation, takes precedence over the municipality’s general regulatory powers. The Municipality relied heavily on Sections 476 to 482 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which give them the authority to inspect, seize, and destroy food that is not suitable for human consumption. But the Court performed a crucial legal triangulation.
First, it made explicit that Section 481 of the Municipality Act gives the power to destroy things only if the items can be established to be ‘unfit for human consumption’ according to Section 479. The Court pointed out that the municipality had not given any ‘sanitary certification or test’ to prove this important point. So, even according to its own claimed legal basis, the destruction of items was against the law. Second, and more importantly, the Court applied the notion that a special law can override a general law. The Street Vendors Act, 2014, is a law passed by Parliament to protect a group of workers who are at risk. The 2019 Scheme, which is based on Section 38 of this Act, sets out a complete and legally binding set of rules for eviction and seizure. Regulation 16 of the Scheme requires a detailed inventory, the vendor’s signature or official attestation if they refuse, and a 24-hour period during which perishable goods must be kept so that they can be claimed.
The Court observed that even if the aggrieved was operating without any formal vending certificate, the municipal authorities remained bound by the safeguards and procedures laid down under 2019 scheme. This marks as a significant jurisprudential shift broadening the protective ambit of ‘Due Process’ doctrine to include not only the registered vendors but also those who, in reality form the backbone of the street vending community.
3. Constitutional Core: Livelihood as a Fundamental Right
The Court delineated the ‘Cart’ as well as ‘Weighing Scale’ of the petitioner as the ‘tools of trade’. It added that the seizure of one’s ‘tools of trade’ amounts to violation of his fundamental right to engage in any profession as provided under Article 19(1)(g). Furthermore, it noted that the destruction of the fish stock and the loss of earnings were violations of right to life with dignity as enshrined under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. Describing the petitioner as a “hapless fishmonger struggling at the edges of life”, the court condemned the conduct of the municipality as a “stark abuse of power” and a breach of rule of law. This ruling draws on precedents like Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation which laid down the foundation of equating deprivation of livelihood with denial of life. The similar principle was extended in the case of Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee. Here, the Supreme Court recognised street vending as a fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g), subject to the reasonable restrictions.
Following the broader interpretation of Art. 14 in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court said that any procedure established by law must be fair, equitable, and not-arbitrary. Against this constitutional backdrop, the destruction of perishable goods in the present case without affording locus standi to the petitioner or conducting even the basic assessment of unfitness is the clear manifestation of procedural arbitrariness. The judicial reasoning further rested upon what was held in the case of Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking v. State of Kerala, that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses ‘right to a minimum decent living’. The Kerala High Court additionally held that ‘the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014’ supersedes ‘the Kerala Municipality Act’ and clause 16 of ‘Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood, Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme, 2019’ which mandates the preservation of seized items.
Internationally, this decision resonates with International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 177 (1996) on Home Work, along with the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda as a whole which emphasize the need to protect workers in an informal economy, including their right to safe working conditions and social protection. India has not ratified C177, but the idea of protecting the most vulnerable from unfair treatment is part of the global labor rights conversation that shapes progressive constitutional interpretation. In the landmark case Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom, the South African Constitutional Court ruled that the government must make it feasible for citizens to access their rights and that its actions must be ‘reasonable’. In a similar way, the European Court of Human Rights has always declared in Winterstein and Others v. France, that even if someone is unlawfully occupying property, the state may destroy personal belongings in a way that is fair and equitable. The Kerala High Court’s ruling is in line with what most people around the world agree on: state power, no matter how enormous, must be implemented in an equitable manner and with proportionality. The High Court confirmed that the cart is not just property for the street vendor; it is also an extension of their identity and dignity. Protecting it is a necessary part of the right to life itself. This judicial reasoning elevates the judgement beyond a mere condemnation of state’s arbitrary act to an important precedent that firmly establishes the labour rights of the informal workforce within the broader framework of constitutional law.
4. Implications: Safeguarding the Informal Workforce
The Nisham verdict mandates due process i.e. a prior notice, hearing and detailed inventory before evictions or seizures, curbing arbitrary state’s actions. The Court upheld the right to dignity and livelihood of street vendors while drawing a parallel between the destruction of perishables of a street vendor and illegal lockout of factory workmen. In doing so, it resonates with the ‘Decent Work’ agenda of International Labour Organization that safeguards informal workers and explicitly condemns the destruction of their essential ‘tools of trade’. The compensation of INR15,000 covers not only the loss of property but also the deep trauma of one losing his livelihood. This decision empowers the activists and lawyers across the country powerful tools to leverage the Street Vendors Act, 2014, to challenge local overreach and hold urban bodies accountable for abusing central protections. It calls upon the state to shift from rigid, punitive enforcement to regulation which safeguards livelihood, ensuring the vendors like Nisham are not left stranded in a state of legal uncertainty. In the narrative of India’s economic growth, the right to run a street cart is sacred as running a corporate empire- a principle that this judgement firmly holds.
Saumya Verma is an Assistant Professor of Law at Soundarya Educational Trust, Bengaluru, and a Ph.D. candidate at RGNUL, Punjab, specializing in Intellectual Property Rights and Geographical Indications.