By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Lyzander Sohkhlet’s latest response to my letter alleging that he misquoted the law confirms my suspicion about him trying to mislead the public on the street vendors and drum up resentment against them. But I also realize that he is highly misinformed on some issues, and he uses this misinformation to mislead the public. It’s a concoction which is highly worrying.
First of all, he says that “Mr. Mawroh’s claim that there is “no subsection (1)” is incorrect. While the Act may not use numeric subsection labels in the traditional way (1, 2, 3…), the opening paragraph of Section 10 is understood as its primary operative clause. Legal readers and drafters routinely cite the main operative paragraph as “subsection (1)” for clarity, a common practice across Indian legislation”. In the Act, there is the preceding section 9: Validity and renewal of certificate of vending, which has two subsections (1) and (2) that are clearly labelled. Section 10 has two paragraphs but is not numbered. By his logic, if you don’t label the first paragraph of the Act, it automatically becomes subsection (1), the second paragraph of section 10, then subsection (2). Is this really what he’s trying to say? So, why number the sections at all? Doesn’t that make it redundant? It appears that while writing his article, he came across the section he needed to back his argument. So, he used the paragraph out of context and made an error. This appears a trivial issue, and it actually is trivial if one admits making a mistake. But instead of admitting that mistakes can happen, he has doubled down on it which proves that he will claim anything just to get what he wants.
Lyzander also talks about the May 2025 judgment – Malkit Singh vs. the State of UT Chandigarh and others, which reiterates that while street vending is a protected trade, it is not unregulated. There is complete agreement on this and that’s why one has the 2014 Act which legalises the trade and puts the legal framework under which it should be conducted. This Act clearly states that no vendor can be evicted or relocated to a different location till the in-situ survey is done and given vending certificates by the Town Vending Committee which is to have elected members from the street vendors who should make up not less than 40% of the committee. TVC will then formulate the plan for street vending by designated vending zones. If relocation is needed after the designation of vending zones, section 38 (zb) clearly states the relocation principle. Lyzander seems to have overlooked or deliberately ignored this particular section, considering his defense of the government’s relocation plan. Since he should be following the news, I ask him: Have the TVC elections been held? Have all the certificates been given? Aren’t street vendors complaining that the authorities gave certificates to illegitimate vendors while ignoring legitimate ones? Are authorities evicting or relocating people without completing the due process in the Act? Some vendors agreed, but what concerns remain for those who did not, and has the government addressed these concerns according to the Act?
Lyzander should go back to the May 2025 judgment he referred to and tell us what the Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment actually said about the street vendors in its judgment. Did it ask for their eviction? What were the illegalities that the court found unacceptable and asked the administration to look into? And he must answer these questions while answering the ones I have raised above. They are both connected. I would encourage others to check the May 2025 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment (it is only 14 pages long); you will then see Lyzander has again tried to mislead the public by distorting the facts. The judgment actually states in paragraph 7 that there is “an elite class still following the British who look down on those doing small businesses and treat them as if they are the mafia, or encroachers who cause chaos in commercial hubs”. Readers can find the statement and reflect on why the Court said that. Also check paragraph 13 of the Judgment which says “However, in a nutshell, we notice that Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as the Act allows them to be protected seeking their eviction and no writ would lie seeking their eviction.” And then read paragraph 20, which is the second-to-last paragraph of the judgment. It states: “The petition, prima facie, appears to be a motivated petition with a view to use the legal forum for evicting and destabilizing the local business of the street vendors. We cannot allow such abuse of the process of law. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000 each on both the Unions, to be deposited with the Municipal Corporation, U.T. Chandigarh, for the welfare of the street vendors and their families.” Readers can go and check whether these sections are actually from the May 2025 judgment or if I am making them up.
As for the traffic problem in Laitumkhrah near Nazareth, it’s a recurring one and is because the road is very narrow, not because of the vendors sitting on the footpath outside the gate, not on the footpath used by pedestrians to walk. The traffic starts right from above Goraline until the traffic point. It’s so bad that one cannot even move an inch. I know it because I work in the area and I use the footpath regularly. The long-term solution is not to evict the street vendors but to expand the road by getting the houses on the other side of the hospital to give up land for the purpose. Maybe Lyzander can talk to the area’s property owners to part willingly with the land, thus relieving congestion for patients and commuters. Or to have a balance, both can be done. Get the land and also evict the street vendors. In fact, he should ask the Government to take the land for expansion by exercising the power of eminent domain. They should do it for the patients and the commuters. But if one is done and not the other, then it’s not about decongesting or making the roads safe — it’s pure animosity against a vulnerable group.
I asked Lyzander for the specific sections from the Act which the street vendors have violated, and he provided none. Instead, he gave reference to a Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment, which actually supports the claim of the street vendors in Shillong. It cannot be that he has not read the Act or the judgment and not understood it. In my last letter, I asked whether he was misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead people. Now it is clear that he falls into the second category I suspected, and I am truly worried. I have got my answer, and I hope the readers have found theirs as well.
One thing which I would commend Lyzander for is that he has not used the street vendors to spread communal hatred. A perception is being created that non-indigenous street vendors have populated Khyndailad and other locations, coupled with a negative view of Khasi women. Of course, like the illegal immigrants bogey, this also is a lie. And if you ask those who hold such an opinion to produce documentary evidence, they will not have any. But they will continue spewing communal hatred and making sexist remarks on Khasi women. So, I believe that there is still hope that Lyzander will take important lessons from this interaction. But if he doubles down and sticks to his arguments (ill-informed sometimes but deliberate in many), he should answer the questions I have posed. If he doesn’t have any answers and tries to deflect the issue, it will not look good on him. The choice is up to him.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organization or institution)