By Bhogtoram Mawroh
In his latest article, “Restoring Public Space: A Love Letter to Law and Logic,” (ST Aug 4, 2025) Lynzander Sohklet has gone and done it again. He has lied again, which is incredible since I thought he would have learned his lesson from the first time around. Why he would do that, considering the fact that he should know by now that his lies would be caught again, is incredible. But that is personal proclivity, and it’s up to the readers to judge for themselves what to make of such behaviour. I make no claims to being infallible. I have made plenty of mistakes but I am very careful not to misquote the facts, because in this day and age of information overload, getting the facts wrong is stupid.
The first lie is about the non-existent subsection 10 (1), claiming that the Act in question, i.e., Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, does not use numbered sub-sections, so the first paragraph should be considered as sub-section 1. The logic is astounding (i.e., false) and misleading, since the preceding section of the Act before the non-existent 10 (1) has two subsections, 9 (1) and 9 (2). So, the first lie. Then he claims that the 2025 judgement Malkit Singh vs State of UT Chandigarh has reiterated a previous observation on the case concerning Gurnam Kaur, arguing that while street vending is a protected livelihood, it is not an absolute right. This is again incredible, since the 2025 judgment does not mention Gurnam Kaur or make the observations he claims. In fact, it supported the right of the street vendors and refused to evict them. This is the second lie.
And now Lyzander has gone and lied for a third time. He did this in his last article, where he again quoted a passage from the Malkit Singh vs State of UT Chandigarh, distorting it to mislead. This is the passage in the article in which he has again tried to mislead the public – “I also find it amusing how Mawroh has tried to build his case around a recent judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, only to cherry-pick lines that suit his argument. He quotes the Court’s sympathy but skips the part where the case was dismissed for lacking legal basis. More inconveniently, he omits the fact that the Court imposed a Rs 50,000 fine on each petitioner for wasting judicial time.”
So, he is accusing me of cherry-picking paragraphs from a judgment, which is ironic considering this whole discussion started with him doing the same with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, where he cited a non-existent subsection, and then tried to defend it instead of accepting his mistake. The paragraphs I cited formed the core of the judgment, and the readers can check it for themselves. Like I said in the past, the judgment is only 14 pages long.
Then Lyzander talks about the court imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 on each petitioner for wasting judicial time. This is correct, but he appears to be suggesting that the fine was imposed on the street vendors. Otherwise, he would not have mentioned it. Again, readers, please go read the 2025 judgment Malkit Singh vs State of UT Chandigarh by yourself. The petitioners who brought the case were Manimajra Vyapar Mandal (traders’ association) and the Residential Welfare Association, Manimajra (residents’ association), and they wanted the Court to evict the hawkers, which it refused because it was against the law. The fine imposed on the two associations/Unions was then asked to be deposited for the welfare of street vendors and their families. The passage below is the original one from the judgment: 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. It is not possible that Lyzander cannot read a simple sentence. He can, but being a pathological liar, he is again trying to mislead the people.
In my last article I had asked Lyzander the following questions: 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?
In his response, Lyzander agreed that there have been some irregularities where genuine hawkers have not been given licenses. For those who survive on what they can earn on a particular day, this is a big blow. I am distressed to think how they have managed to survive for all this time without being allowed to do business. Being poor is not a very pleasant thing, especially when you have a family to feed and expenses to take care of without the generational wealth. Lyzander ignored the questions on whether the law has been followed in terms of the composition of the TVC or the relocation. Recently, this very same newspaper carried news of a hawker admitting that the relocation has resulted in loss of income for her. Is this not a violation of the law?
There are many other fallacies in Lyzander’s article, but I will not go into those because it’s a waste of time. He will then come back after a few weeks, having planned what to lie about next. The core issue is whether the law has been applied in letter and spirit. And since he has not found an opportunity to lie about them, he has conveniently decided to ignore those questions. I have come to realize that Lyzander will never answer questions where he cannot lie. Therefore, I am done with this discussion, and I am hoping that the High Court of Meghalaya will, in the end, do justice. If not, I hope the Supreme Court will. Till then, to the readers, I request: please go read the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the 2025 Malkit Singh vs State of UT Chandigarh judgment.
In my discussion with people who are against the hawkers, despite being reminded of the 2014 Act, they are adamant that even if the law exists it should not be implemented because the state is hilly. This exceptionalism, however, does not work in relation to laws to which they agree with, for example, the regulation that non-indigenous non-tribal groups cannot own land in areas under the Sixth Schedule in Meghalaya despite the latter having lived in the state for almost two centuries. Here, they want the law to be implemented in letter and spirit.
I agree with the provisions under the Sixth Schedule because it is very crucial for ensuring the survival of our indigenous communities. The day we lose control of our land is the day we become a minority. Considering how we treat our own minorities, I don’t want our people to be in that position. In the same way, livelihood is also a very important concern, and the 2014 Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act is also a very progressive law which I support. It protects the livelihood of the most vulnerable members of our society, while balancing the interests of the other stakeholders. That’s why the law provides for a democratic and fair composition of the TVC (Town Vending Committee), which the Government has not implemented. Let’s not forget that we are among the poorest states in the country and more than 70% of our people are landless. Even if we are so heartless and privileged as to ignore the suffering of our brethren, at least let us not be hypocrites who pick and choose which law should be followed.
In the final analysis I would like to say this: those who are convinced that in relation to the hawkers, the law should not be followed, you are basically advocating for lawlessness. You are setting a precedent where people’s privilege and bias should be above the law. Be careful what you wish for. Life has a nasty habit of making our wishes come true.
(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)