Court's Strong Rebuke
The Bombay High Court has vociferously admonished both the state government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for their perceived inaction
in tackling the pervasive issue of unauthorized street vendors operating within Mumbai. Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata articulated their displeasure, stressing that public officials are duty-bound to act as guardians of the populace when addressing such civic disturbances. The bench highlighted a particularly disturbing trend: individuals who dare to voice opposition to these illegal encroachments are reportedly facing violent repercussions. This judicial intervention stems from a petition filed by the Goregaon Merchants Association, which has brought to the court's attention the alarming proliferation of illegal hawkers, particularly in the western suburb of Goregaon, leading to significant disruption and inconvenience for Mumbai's residents. The association has painted a grim picture of lawlessness and aggressive behavior, especially around the Goregaon West railway station and the adjacent Aarey Road junction.
Hawker Menace Escalates
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Bahraiz Irani, have detailed a distressing scenario where unregulated street vendors are not only occupying public spaces but also allegedly harassing passersby. A critical point raised is the alleged complicity or inefficiency of enforcement agencies, with claims that vendors are often tipped off before BMC inspection teams arrive, allowing them to evade action. This creates an environment of impunity. The court was further alarmed by accounts of physical assaults on individuals who have spoken out against this illegal vending. Justice Khata specifically mentioned an incident where an elderly person was severely beaten, underscoring the severity of the situation and the potential for escalating violence. The court questioned the efficacy of current measures and the commitment of the authorities to uphold public order and safety.
Official Promises & Concerns
In response to the court's inquiries, the government's legal representative indicated that directives had been issued to the BMC to ensure that anti-hawking operations are conducted in two shifts. Furthermore, it was stated that police personnel would be present during these enforcement drives to maintain order. However, the amicus curiae, Advocate Jamshed Mistry, brought forth crucial context by reminding the court of past tragedies, referencing the horrific stampede incident at Elphinstone Road (now Prabhadevi) in 2017. This serves as a stark reminder of the potential dangers posed by overcrowded public spaces and the urgent need for effective regulation of street vending, especially near transit hubs like railway stations. The court also noted that individuals accused in violent incidents related to hawking have been arrested but subsequently released on bail, raising further questions about the long-term deterrent effect of legal actions.
Judicial Expectations
The judges directly confronted the authorities, posing pointed questions about the reasons behind the ongoing failure to implement existing directives and fulfill their responsibilities. The court reiterated that officials are meant to serve and protect the public, questioning what further measures or support could possibly be required for them to act. When it was suggested that the state government possesses the necessary powers to intervene decisively, the judges emphasized the fundamental role of officers as 'protectors.' In light of these discussions, the High Court granted the authorities an extension to submit a detailed affidavit outlining the specific actions they have undertaken and intend to implement. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 21, with the court clearly signaling its expectation of tangible progress and robust enforcement against illegal hawking.
