By Bhogtoram Mawroh
There has been a lot of debate and reaction regarding the relocation of hawkers from the footpaths of Khyndailand to the 1st floor of the MUDA Parking Lot. While the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 does not prevent relocation, it has clearly laid down certain conditions under which one can implement such actions. The Second Schedule, sub-section zb, clearly mentions that certain principles must govern the relocation of hawkers from their previous place of business. There are 8 of these, and one is very relevant in this case. This is principle number (iii) which reads: affected vendors shall be relocated so as to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-evicted levels. Simply put, this principle states that relocating hawkers is unacceptable if the new location will negatively affect their ability to earn a living. If they cannot experience an increase in their income, it must be in real terms (income which is adjusted for inflation to get the real value of money) not lower from what they could earn in the previous location. The question therefore is whether the relocation taking place in Khyndailand will lead to a fall in income of the hawkers or will it improve it in the long term.
The press release of the Urban Affairs Department dated July 24, 2025, reveals the answer to the first question. Paragraph 5 has this to say about the issue: In addition, the Urban Affairs Department is providing a relocation allowance to vendors holding a valid CoV. This support includes a one-time payment of Rs 10,000 and a monthly allowance of Rs 2,000 for five months. So, there is a clear admission by the government that the relocation will at least temporarily lead to a fall in income for the hawkers. Therefore, they are providing financial support to facilitate the relocation. This includes a onetime payment of Rs 10,000 and a monthly allowance of Rs 2,000 for five months, which brings the total cost altogether to Rs 81,40,000, if we take the government figure that they found 407 vendors eligible for a Certificate of Vending (CoV). The cost accrued to the government will rise if more hawkers are eligible for the Certificate.
Meghalaya and Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers and Street Vendors Association (MGSPHSVA), which has been at the forefront of demanding the implementation of the Central Law, has accused that the list omits many genuine hawkers. If this is true, this will majorly violate the judgment that a High Court has already passed on the eviction and relocation of hawkers. This is the May 2025 Malkit Singh vs. State of UT Chandigarh and others judgment. While stating that eviction is illegal under the 2014 Act, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pointed out that “the benefits which it meant to give to the genuine street vendors is also being misused by a certain set of persons, and that even the shopkeepers themselves set up hawkers’ stalls in front of their shops selling their own items”. So, non-genuine hawkers are appropriating the rights of the genuine hawkers. The High Court deemed this a serious breach of the law, stating that “such misuse of law deserves to be dealt with an iron hand and a will to execute the provisions of law with integrity and dutifully.” If one were to believe the claims made by MGSPHSVA, this is exactly what has taken place.
Genuine hawkers have been deprived of their rights, and this has been at the behest of the Urban Affairs Department, which is leading the process. During the next hearing of the case in the Meghalaya High Court, it will be important for the Court to ask the MUDA to submit the rationale for approving and ignoring the applications for Certificates of Vending (CoV). If there has been some lapse, it must be determined whether this was intention or the result of a process implemented hurriedly. In case it is intentional, the Court must order an investigation to find the culprits behind it because this is clearly a case of corruption. If we want to uphold the rule of law, we must identify and punish the people who took part in this illegal activity. This is a very serious issue, and I hope the Court will look into this and get to the bottom of the truth.
Coming back to the compensation that the hawkers are going to get which is Rs 20,000 per hawker in total, it is also important the Court ask the Government about how they arrived at these figures. Did the Urban Affairs Department do a survey of the hawkers to assess the turnover and the income earned by them? How was the survey designed? Was it a sample survey or were all the hawkers surveyed? If it was a sample survey, what was the sample size and how did the study account for the different businesses (e.g., kwai, clothes, shoes, electronics, food, etc.) practiced by the hawkers? What was the average income that the survey revealed and was this figure the basis for the Rs 20,000 per hawker arrived at by the government? It could very well be that the Rs 20,000 is actually higher than the actual financial compensation that is needed. In that case, the government is being over-generous and committing to a loss of precious financial resources, which for a financially strapped state like Meghalaya is a big problem. But in case the compensation grossly underestimates the loss that the hawkers are going to experience by shifting to a new location, it violates the 2014 Act and therefore is illegal. The Court can then exercise its mandate and stop an illegality from taking place.
One thing that has to be remembered is that the Rs 20,000 per hawker is meant to supplement what the hawkers would earn in the new location. So, in an ideal situation, if the new site is better or similar to the old site, the hawkers will earn an extra Rs 20,000, which is pure profit for them. The government would then be viewed favourably by the hawkers, who would become its staunchest supporters in the future. But if the financial support works out to be purely compensation for losing income at the new site, as long as the hawkers are getting it, their earnings will not suffer. But when they stop getting it, i.e., after 5 months, the hawkers will start experiencing a decline in income; it will again violate the 2014 Act. So, the Court must ask the Government about how it arrived at the Rs 20,000 per hawker and the market projections it must have made to prove that the hawkers will not suffer a loss of income during the five months period and after it. In case there is a decline in income, is the government planning to restart the financial support or are they going to allow the hawkers to return to the old site where they can regain their lost earnings? If they do neither of the two, this is just a tactic to push the hawkers into a situation where desperation makes them abandon their business, i.e., eviction in the long run. This also goes against the 2014 Act.
It took almost a decade and lots of struggles to get the Government of Meghalaya to repeal the illegal state Act and adopt the Central Act. But, despite assuring the Court that it will implement the Act in its totality there are attempts being made to circumvent the Act, at least that’s the allegation of MGSPHSVA and my opinion unless the relocation does not adhere to the principles underlined in the Act. It was the Supreme Court that directed the Union Government to make the law on hawkers, and today the case is back in the courts, albeit the Meghalaya High Court. So, it will be very interesting to see how the Court handles it because in the end we will have to defer to it. Courts are the guardians of the Constitution and the law in the country and our state. And I hope they will eventually make everyone follow the 2014 Act, whether it’s the hawkers or the Government. That will be justice, and considering all the corruption and legal violations taking place every day in our society, we urgently need hope that, in the end, the Constitution will prevail and the law will be upheld.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution)