Bengaluru Street Vendors Move High Court Against Eviction Drive, Say SC's Right To Walk Ruling Doesn't Permit Eviction Without Due Process

Fifteen street vendors, operating out of the Krishna Raja (K.R.) Market in Bengaluru, have approached the Karnataka High Court against what they describe as a 'high-handed, arbitrary and illegal' attempt by civic and police authorities to evict them from their vending spots without notice or compliance with the statutory scheme.

The petitioners rely on the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 to argue that no eviction can precede a survey, a Town Vending Committee recommendation and a notified Vending Zone Plan.

Hence, the plea also seeks to distinguish the Supreme Court's recent footpath-encroachment ruling in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan [2026], which, according to the plea, does not condone summary eviction of street vendors in violation of the 2014 Street Vendors Act.

It has been further argued that the statutory scheme itself reconciles pedestrian movement with regulated vending through measured pitches and demarcation, and that the vendors are willing to maintain a clear pedestrian passage, even while upholding their right to livelihood under Article 21.

Advocate Angad Kamath for the petitioner mentioned the matter today [August 17] before Justice B M Shyam Prasad. The court has decided to take up the matter again tomorrow [August 18].

The writ petition by the vendors argue that they have continued their trade activities in pitches of roughly 4 feet by 5 feet across a stretch of public street and footpath nearby Green Bazar Road, abutting the Old Market Building in K.R. Market, Chickpet, for several years. The petitioners argue further that their presence has been in municipal surveys and identity documents well enough.

According to the petition, the issue initially sprung up during the 2011-2012 time period. Around that time, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had sought to remove around 574 street vendors from the area surrounding K.R Market.

A plethora of representations, fearing definitive action, was filed through Karnataka State Dalitha Kriya Samithi to the Mayor, the Chief Commissioner and the State SC/ST Commission, resulting in a civic file before the BBMP, as per the petitioners.

By virtue of such civic file, authorities reportedly proposed to demarcate 574 regulated vending spaces of 4x5 feet each, while assuring that alternate shops or spaces would separately be built and allotted to vendors.

The plea highlights that the aforesaid proposal, and the promised alternate accommodation by civic authorities, were never implemented.

The plea further points out that with the advent of Street Vendors Act in 2014, BBMP proceeded to carry out a vendor survey between September–October in 2017. Pursuant to such survey, BBMP had allegedly provided identity cards as well as vending certificates were issued to several vendors, including for those in the K.R. Market.

Tracing the chronology further, the plea adds that the Karnataka Street Vendors Rules was notified in 2019 and the Street Vendors Scheme in 2020, prescribing timelines for surveys, certification, preparation of a Vending Zone Plan and Town Vending Committee Elections.

The prescribed timeline for survey completion and notification of vending zone plan lapsed in December 2020, the plea states further. Moreover, a fresh Town Vending Committee election cycle due in 2022 was never held according to the petitioners.

In the meantime, certificates issued post the 2017 survey lapsed in the year 2023 according to the plea, though the vendors continued to occupy the spots they were at.

According to the petitioners' version, a newer survey between September–December 2024 reportedly identified about 27,655 street vendors city wide, but certificates pursuant to that survey were also allegedly never issued.

As per to the petition, the state government is said to have acknowledged in 2025 that the 2022 vending committee election process had not been carried out. The said statement, according to the plea, was made in reference to 189 identified vending zones with approximately 10,142 vending spots. According to the plea, there has yet not been a functional Town Vending Committee for the area in question, even after the constitution of the Greater Bengaluru Authority in 2025.

The plea contends that the respondent authorities visited the vending sites in June 2026 and threatened removal without furnishing any individual notice or approved plan or a Town Vending Committee decision. What followed according to the plea was an 'illegal' eviction drive at the K.R. Market vending area wherein the vendors were obstructed from carrying on business and displaced from their spots.

The aggravating action initiated by the civic authorities was a part of the 'Safe Pedestrian Path Campaign' launched from July 1, 2026 across Bengaluru's newly reorganised City Corporations, says the petitioners.

Aggrieved by such alleged 'illegal' actions, the vendors have now approached the High Court.

The petition, as a ground, contends that any eviction, removal or seizure carried out otherwise than in strict compliance with Sections 3, 18, 19 and 27 of the Street Vendors Act 2014, the Karnataka Street Vendors Rules, 2019 and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme, 2020 is without any authority of law.

In the absence of the existence and recommendation by a duly constituted Town Vending Committee, any unilateral action by civic officials, marshals, or police cannot be condoned as per the plea. The petitioners also invoke the principle that authorities cannot take advantage of their own default, stating that the authorities should not be relying on the absence or expiry of vending certificates when it is the authorities themselves who have failed to complete the survey, or constitute the Committee and notify vending zones within the statutory timeline prescribed.

Relying on the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus declaring that any eviction, removal, relocation or seizure carried out otherwise than in strict compliance with the Act, the applicable Rules, Scheme and principles of natural justice as illegal and without jurisdiction. It also seeks for directions to complete the constitution/election of a representative Town Vending Committee, survey and verify the petitioners, issue or renew their vending certificates, and prepare and notify a Vending Zone Plan for the area within a strict timeline.

Case Title: Shri Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case Title: WP No. 26107/2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Angad Kamath and Shri Ajay Kumar N., Advocates, M/s Pragnya Law, Bengaluru