Malkit Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh 2026 INSC 341 Street Vendors
Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) -Street Vendors - Every citizen has the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Street vending falls squarely within this protection. At the same time, this right is not absolute. Article 19(6) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public– To conceive of street vendors as units that can be removed or relocated at the ‘drop of a hat’ would be an incorrect use of power, either judicial or administrative. They are not solely economic units; they are people trying to earn an honest living in cities that often offer them few, if any, alternatives. For many, street vending is not a choice but a necessity that allows them to support their families, educate children, and survive in an increasingly expensive urban environment (Para 2) If vendors are displaced through encroachment drives and lawful vending zones are available, the State has a duty to actively support their transition to these zones in accordance with the law. Doing so upholds both the spirit of regulation and the human reality of those whose lives depend on street vending. It is also to be recognized that forcible shifting or removal of encroachments, while it may be entirely in accordance with law, disrupts the customer base that comes with the shop being located at a particular area. The State is required to undertake efforts to let residents know that the shops have been shifted, i.e., have awareness drives that would divert the customers to the designated area. (Para 12-13)
Case Info
Here’s the structured information from the judgment:
Basic Case Details
Case name: Malkit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 341
Coram:Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Judgment/order date: 9 April 2026 (New Delhi)
Statutes / Laws Referred
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 – particularly sections 2(d), 2(l), 2(n), 12, 14, 17, 21, 27, 28, 33.
The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Bye‑Laws, 2018 (as amended in 2020) – especially definitions (essential service providers, public purpose, vending zone, licence) and clauses 4, 5, 8 on duties, prohibitions and penalties.
Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6), and 21.
Case Laws and Citations
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545
- Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155
- Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, (1997) 11 SCC 121
- Saudan Singh v. NDMC, (1992) 2 SCC 458 (referred to via Gainda Ram)
- Sudhir Madan v. MCD, (2009) 17 SCC 332
- Gainda Ram v. MCD, (2010) 10 SCC 715
- Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, (2014) 1 SCC 490
- S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, (2026) 2 SCC 207
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order dismissing a writ petition by traders seeking removal of street vendors/encroachments in Manimajra, Chandigarh, and imposing costs on their associations. Emphasising that street vendors’ right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g), read with Article 21, must be balanced against the public’s right to unobstructed roads and planned urban spaces, the Court stressed regulation through statutory schemes, vending zones and byelaws rather than arbitrary crackdowns. While noting the Corporation’s recent enforcement drives and removal of unauthorised vendors, the Court directed affidavits on regularisation and relocation to designated vending zones, along with public awareness measures, and listed the matter for further consideration on 27 April 2026.