Editor,
It was quite distressing to see visuals of the police attempting to evict hawkers in such an aggressive manner. The issue of hawkers versus the state has persisted for over a decade, originating when the then state government unlawfully introduced its own law, in contravention of the central law that had already been enacted. This led to a court case in which the hawkers emerged victorious. However, it now appears that the Government is once again attempting to act outside the bounds of the law.
According to the law, the number of hawkers permitted in a particular location must be based on the holding capacity of the area. As per Section 2(b) of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, holding capacity refers to “the maximum number of street vendors who can be accommodated in any vending zone and has been determined as such by the local authority on the recommendations of the Town Vending Committee.” Furthermore, Chapter III, Section 3(2) of the Act stipulates that this figure is to be “two and a half per cent of the population of the ward or zone or town or city, as the case may be, in accordance with the plan for street vending and the holding capacity of the vending zones.”
The law also lays down specific provisions for the relocation of vendors. Section (zb), under the principles of relocation, clearly states that affected vendors shall be relocated in a manner that improves their livelihoods and standards of living—or at the very least restores them, in real terms, to pre-eviction levels. This means that any new location must not result in a decline in the vendors’ income.
Has the Government of Meghalaya conducted a holding capacity assessment? Has it undertaken a survey to ensure that relocated hawkers will not suffer a loss of income compared to their previous locations? These are not discretionary measures—they are legal obligations, which the Government explicitly committed to upholding in court. If these steps have not been taken, is the Government now reneging on its promise to the judiciary? Proceeding with forced evictions without complying with these requirements is a clear violation of the law. A government that ignores its legal responsibilities and acts arbitrarily forfeits its moral and constitutional legitimacy to govern.
Bhogtoram Mawroh
Shillong
