Join our Whatsapp channel
The Bombay High Court has questioned the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over the requirement of domicile certificates for street vendors in Mumbai. This requirement has sparked debates about its impact on the livelihoods of thousands of hawkers and its legal implications.
Several hawkers’ unions have argued that the rule disqualified around 70,000 street vendors from voting in the town vending committee elections. They claim this exclusion threatens their right to earn a living, as committee decisions directly affect hawking zones and licensing.
The court raised concerns about the legal basis for the domicile rule and its potential to discriminate against long-time hawkers lacking domicile certificates. Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata asked BMC to justify this requirement and explain how it aligns with the constitutional right to livelihood.
Legal experts suggest that the rule could face challenges for violating the Supreme Court’s rulings, which recognise street vending as a fundamental right. They warn that enforcing domicile certificates could set a precedent affecting similar policies across India.
BMC defended the rule, stating it prioritises local residents and helps regulate the growing number of hawkers in Mumbai. However, the court questioned whether this policy unfairly targets vendors who have been operating in the city for years.
The High Court has directed BMC to present a detailed report on the legal justification for the rule. It also requested data on the number of vendors affected and comparisons with hawking policies in other states.
The next hearing is scheduled for 24th February. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for street vending regulations in Mumbai and beyond.
This case could set a legal precedent on how urban governance balances local regulations with the constitutional right to livelihood.
