By Lyzander E Sohkhlet
As a resident of Laitumkhrah, I witness firsthand the dangerous, chaotic, and lawless effects of unregulated street vending in our locality. What others write about from an ideological distance, I live with every single day. The footpaths I am supposed to walk on are gone. The roads are choked with vendor stalls that spill out into the street. School children walking home are forced to step into moving traffic. The elderly must navigate narrow gaps between tarpaulin-covered stalls, ambulances blocked. And for people with disabilities, the message is cruel and clear: this city is not for you.
The past few days have seen a surge in editorials and letters attempting to paint street vendors in Shillong as helpless victims of a tyrannical state. Letters such as those by Bhogtoram Mawroh and Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh have struck emotional chords but distorted both the legal and factual landscape of the issue. However, I stand in full solidarity with the Government of Meghalaya, the Shillong Municipal Board, and the Meghalaya Police. These are not agents of oppression but institutions tasked with upholding order, safety and fairness in public spaces. The actions taken in Khyndai Lad were not arbitrary. They were necessary. The issue of unregulated street vending in Shillong has long been framed as a battle between livelihoods and legality. But what we are now seeing in Laitumkhrah and Khyndai Lad is no longer about survival. It is about defiance. When a section of vendors openly threatens officials from the Shillong Municipal Board and even personnel from the Meghalaya Police, one vendor even threatened officials with a machete, the situation ceases to be one of urban struggle. It becomes a matter of public order, a test of the state’s ability to uphold the rule of law.
In previous articles, I highlighted the ways in which encroachments on footpaths have turned Shillong’s busiest zones into blackspots for accidents. The situation near Nazareth Hospital is perhaps the most telling. Despite being a legally designated no-vending zone, the area remains packed with stalls, litter, and chaos. Ambulances often struggle to get through. Pedestrians, including students, the elderly and the differently-abled, are routinely pushed onto the roads. It is not only illegal. It is life-threatening. The Government of Meghalaya, through representatives like Paul Lyngdoh and Deputy Chief Minister Prestone Tynsong, has taken concrete steps to resolve this issue with fairness. A legitimate vending zone has been created in the MUDA complex and other venues. These spaces, located safely off the roads and protected from the elements, have 400 stalls. So far, 248 vendors have consented to shifts as stated by T7 news. These numbers tell a different story from the narrative of victimhood some continue to peddle.
This is not an eviction without alternatives. The Government has backed the relocation with real support. Each vendor is being offered a ten thousand rupee allowance for shifting and an additional monthly support of two thousand rupees for five months. A full year of dialogue has already taken place. The Town Vending Committee has held multiple meetings with hawker associations. There have been repeated attempts at consensus. The State has not only offered legal space but also financial and logistical help.
And yet, a group of vendors and their supporters have chosen confrontation over cooperation. The protests outside the Secretariat, while presented as democratic expressions of dissent, were carried out in violation of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Moreover, several vendors were found to be operating without valid Certificates of Vending. When authorities approached to carry out verification, they were met not with documents but with threats.
We must stop romanticising such defiance. When public servants are obstructed in the line of duty, when the law is mocked, and when streets meant for everyone are hijacked by a few, the state has not only the right but the duty to act. This is not about class conflict. This is about safety, order and fairness.
Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh describes the events as a moment of “resistance.” He omits, however, that some vendors physically blocked officials, refused verification of documents, and in at least one case, wielded a machete. This is not democratic protest. This is open defiance of the law. Romanticising such behaviour is not only irresponsible but dangerous.
Bhogtoram Mawroh, similarly, quotes legal provisions selectively to argue that the Government is acting outside the law. He references holding capacity norms and relocation ethics. What he fails to mention is that four hundred stalls have already been built in the MUDA complex and more, 248 vendors have already consented to move as stated by T7 news, and financial assistance has been offered. This is not forced eviction. This is structured relocation. Mawroh and Pyrtuh present a false binary: that to defend law and order is to oppose the poor. That to uphold traffic rules is to be anti-people. This is a dangerous argument. The poor do not benefit from chaos. They benefit from safe streets, walkable footpaths, and fair systems. So do students. So do workers. So does everyone.
The law on this is crystal clear. Section 10, sub-section (1) of the Street Vendors Act, 2014 states that every street vendor must operate strictly according to the conditions mentioned in the certificate of vending. Anything outside that framework is unlawful. Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code makes obstruction of public ways a punishable offence. These laws were created to ensure a balance between the right to vend and the right to move freely and safely. The judiciary has affirmed this balance. In the Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Gurnam Kaur case of 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that vendors do not have an absolute right to trade on public roads if it causes obstruction. In Sudhir Madan versus the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in 2007, the Delhi High Court ordered the eviction of unauthorised hawkers and reiterated that public convenience must be upheld.
We cannot have one standard for parked cars and another for vendor stalls. If illegally parked vehicles are towed away without debate, why do illegal stalls enjoy impunity? Why are the rights of pedestrians, especially vulnerable ones, always secondary to the loudest group on the street? Even the High Court of Meghalaya, in its order dated September 6, 2024, directed the Public Works Department to stop the dumping of construction material on roads and pavements. The reasoning was clear. Obstructions put lives at risk. If the law recognises cement bags as threats to safety, how can a network of unregulated stalls in front of hospitals, schools, and busy intersections be seen any differently?
The stories of abuse faced by people like Bertina Lyngdoh, a visually impaired PhD scholar (As stated by her personally, in an episode of TST’s Let’s Talk), should shake our conscience. Her account of being verbally attacked for simply asking for space on a public path is not an isolated incident. This is the everyday reality of many citizens in Shillong who are being told, in effect, that their right to safety and dignity matters less.
Those who claim that street vendors “make our streets safer” must reckon with the facts. It was not safety when officials were threatened with a machete. It was not safety when differently abled students are verbally assaulted for simply asking for space. It is not safety when footpaths are so thoroughly occupied that ambulances crawl through clogged roads near hospitals. The poor do not benefit from chaos. The truly vulnerable, the elderly, the differently-abled, children suffer first when order collapses. If these are the fruits of romanticised resistance, then let us have no illusions about what this resistance stands for.
I urge citizens not to be misled by half-truths dressed in moral outrage. This is not about targeting livelihoods. It is about restoring order. The vendors who have accepted relocation have shown maturity and respect for the law. Those who threaten officials and resist verification are not engaging in protest. They are breaking the law. Let us be honest. The streets of Shillong cannot continue to function as informal marketplaces without endangering lives. The Government has tried dialogue. It is now enforcing the law. It is right to do so. If public order collapses, the most vulnerable always suffer first. And if those enforcing the law are vilified, the rule of law becomes meaningless.
The Government is not the villain here. It is the only institution still trying to hold things together.
Those who break the law under the banner of struggle must be told that rights come with responsibilities. Protest is a right, but threats are not. Vending is protected, but only when done within the law. The Government has shown restraint, compassion, and patience. It is now time for enforcement. The state must act firmly against those who continue to defy the law. If threats against police and municipal staff go unpunished, it sends the worst possible message. That intimidation works. That force wins over fairness. And that the rule of law is negotiable.
It is not. And it must not be.
Writer can be reached at [email protected]