Street hawking as a regulated fundamental right must be restricted by statutory law, not mere municipal schemes.

Street hawking and vending are treated as protected activity under Article 19(1)(g), but only as a regulated fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest under Article 19(6). Restrictions on that right must rest on law with statutory force; municipal schemes, executive instructions, or policy documents alone cannot validly curtail it. The text also states that, pending comprehensive legislation, existing NDMC and MCD schemes may continue for a limited period and disputes should first follow their internal redress mechanisms, while the appropriate Government is directed to enact suitable legislation to provide a statutory regulatory framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether street hawking and vending are protected as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6); (ii) whether schemes and policies framed by municipal authorities, without statutory force or bye-laws, can validly regulate or curtail that right; and (iii) the appropriate interim manner of regulating hawking and street vending in Delhi until legislation is enacted.

Issue (i): whether street hawking and vending are protected as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6)

Analysis: The judgment reiterates the settled position that the right to carry on hawking or street vending falls within Article 19(1)(g), but that right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6). The Court emphasises that the right of hawkers must be harmonised with the rights of pedestrians and commuters to use public streets without obstruction.

Conclusion: The right of hawkers and street vendors is protected, but only as a regulated fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

Issue (ii): whether schemes and policies framed by municipal authorities, without statutory force or bye-laws, can validly regulate or curtail that right

Analysis: The Court examines the statutory powers under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and notes that restrictions on hawking must stem from law having statutory force. Mere schemes, executive instructions, or policy documents do not amount to law for the purpose of restricting Article 19(1)(g). The Court notes that while the municipal statutes confer powers to regulate streets, remove obstructions, and frame bye-laws, the relevant byelaws had not been shown to have been enacted so as to supply the requisite legal foundation for a complete and enduring regulatory regime.

Conclusion: Schemes and policy documents by themselves cannot validly substitute for law when restricting the right to hawk; statutory backing is necessary.

Issue (iii): the appropriate interim manner of regulating hawking and street vending in Delhi until legislation is enacted

Analysis: In view of the continuing absence of a comprehensive statutory framework, the Court directs that the existing NDMC and MCD schemes may continue to operate for a limited period, and that disputes must first be addressed through the internal dispute-redressal mechanisms provided in those schemes. The Court further directs the appropriate Government to enact suitable legislation to regulate hawking and street vending within the stipulated time, so that the rights of hawkers and the public can be regulated by law rather than by shifting administrative arrangements.

Conclusion: The writ petition and connected interlocutory applications are disposed of with directions continuing the existing schemes for the stated period and requiring enactment of legislation within that time.

Final Conclusion: The decision preserves the hawkers' fundamental right while holding that its regulation must ultimately rest on statutory law, and it grants only interim governance through the existing schemes until legislation is made.

Ratio Decidendi: A fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) may be restricted only by law having statutory force, and executive schemes or policies cannot by themselves impose enduring restrictions on street hawking and vending.

---