Street hawking rights under Article 19(1)(g) upheld, but occupation of specific pavement space remains subject to regulation.

Public street hawking is protected as a trade under Article 19(1)(g), but only as a regulated activity subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6); no fundamental right exists to occupy any particular pavement space or obstruct pedestrian use. The screening of NDMC and MCD hawker claims was upheld as necessary to exclude bogus claims, but the framework was refined to allow genuine claimants to rely on alternative evidence, receive fresh public notice and objections, and obtain appropriate interim protection. The result was a regulated, area-specific regime intended to preserve both public access and bona fide livelihoods.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pavement-trading and hawking on public streets is protected by Article 19(1)(g) and, if so, the extent to which the State and municipal authorities may regulate or restrict that activity; (ii) Whether the scrutiny standards, eligibility criteria, and remedial directions framed for NDMC and MCD squatters and hawkers required modification to protect genuine claimants while excluding bogus claims.

Issue (i): Whether pavement-trading and hawking on public streets is protected by Article 19(1)(g) and, if so, the extent to which the State and municipal authorities may regulate or restrict that activity.

Analysis: The governing principle was that public streets vest in the State in a trustee capacity for the use of the public. A citizen may use a public street, including for hawking, but that use remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The right recognised is a right to carry on trade by moving from place to place on the pavement, not a right to occupy or squat permanently at a particular spot of one's choice, especially where the rights of pedestrians and the general public would be impaired.

Conclusion: The right to street-trading was affirmed, but only as a regulated right subject to reasonable restrictions, and no fundamental right to occupy any specific pavement space was recognised.

Issue (ii): Whether the scrutiny standards, eligibility criteria, and remedial directions framed for NDMC and MCD squatters and hawkers required modification to protect genuine claimants while excluding bogus claims.

Analysis: The claim-screening exercise was upheld as necessary to weed out fabricated and non-genuine claims, but the Court balanced that need against the livelihood concerns of genuine hawkers. It approved the minimum proof approach in principle, yet required a more flexible review mechanism where authentic alternative evidence existed, especially for the Sarojini Nagar claimants. It also directed fresh public notice, opportunity to object, continued interim protection in appropriate cases, and structured processing of pending and future claims so that bona fide hawkers would not be denied relief merely on technical grounds.

Conclusion: The scrutiny framework was substantially sustained, but it was modified through detailed directions to ensure fair consideration of genuine claims and orderly regulation of hawking in NDMC and MCD areas.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were finally dealt with by issuing comprehensive regulatory directions governing hawking and squatting in Delhi, while preserving the right to trade subject to controlled and area-specific municipal regulation.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to carry on street-trading is protected by Article 19(1)(g), but it is not a right to occupy a particular public pavement space and may be regulated by the State through reasonable restrictions in the interests of the public and pedestrian use.

---