April 2026: HC flags six-month street vending policy deadline criticised as eye wash
The Bombay High Court condemned the state's six-month deadline for finalising a uniform street vending policy as mere eye wash and lip service. It directed concrete action to identify and remove illegal hawkers and asked the BMC to share verified hawker data with police.
Why It Matters
The ruling tests enforcement of street vending regulations in Mumbai and highlights tensions between police powers, municipal authorities, and hawkers, with potential implications for urban mobility and commerce.
Timeline
2 Events
April 28, 2026: Bombay High Court hearing on illegal hawkers in Mumbai
During the hearing before a division bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata, the court criticised the police for failing to remove illegal hawkers from across Mumbai and stated that the police cannot plead lack of power. It clarified that powers exist under the Maharashtra Police Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to verify licences and impose fines, and urged action to prevent hawkers from returning after evictions by the BMC. The state reported more than 9,000 cases registered against illegal hawkers in recent months, and while regular patrols continued, the court suggested that stricter action from the BMC would be needed. The court highlighted the scale of the problem, noting about 3 lakh illegal hawkers citywide and that only around 150 licensed hawkers were verified in Goregaon; the Goregaon Merchants Association (representing about 1,200 shopkeepers) claimed that only 150 licensed hawkers had permission in Goregaon while many stretches remained encroached. It directed the BMC to provide updated details of verified hawkers to the police to jointly identify and remove unauthorised hawkers.
April 2026: GR fixing six-month deadline on street vending policy challenged by HC
In April 2026, the government issued a GR setting a six-month deadline to finalise a uniform street vending policy across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court later described the deadline as mere eye wash and lip service in the absence of concrete enforcement. The court noted that two similar GRs cannot exist concurrently and urged the state to consider withdrawing the latest GR, while a committee was formed and timelines fixed to implement the GR.