By Dweep Tulika
There is an uncomfortable question emerging on the streets of Sri Vijaya Puram:
When the administration removes a roadside vendor in the name of clearing public space, where does the protection of that vendor's livelihood begin and end?
The question is not whether roads, footpaths and public land should remain accessible. They should.
Illegal occupation of government land and obstruction of pedestrian movement cannot simply be ignored.
But a street vendor is not automatically the same thing as an encroacher.
That distinction is particularly important because street vending in India is governed by a specific legal framework — the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — and Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council itself lists the Act, the Union Territory's 2015 Rules and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Street Vendors Scheme, 2016 among the regulations applicable to the municipality.
Clearing Encroachments Is One Thing. Removing Livelihoods Is Another.
In April 2026, the District Administration, in coordination with SVPMC, conducted an eviction drive around Corbyn's Cove Junction and towards Corbyn's Cove beach.
According to the Administration's account, 16 unauthorised structures, including makeshift stalls and temporary shops, were removed from Government Revenue land. Four additional encroachments were removed in the Corbyn's Cove area, and approximately 600 square metres of government land was reclaimed.
The Administration said the structures were operating without valid permission and were affecting pedestrian movement and public access.
If those structures were genuinely unauthorised occupations of government land, removing them is within the government's responsibility.
But that action should not automatically become a justification for treating every small vendor as an encroacher.
A person selling vegetables from a cart, running a small food stall or selling locally produced goods operates within a very different legal and economic reality from someone who has permanently occupied government land without permission.
The law recognises that difference.
The Law Does Not Simply Say: Remove the Vendor
The 2014 Street Vendors Act establishes a system through which street vendors are surveyed, identified and issued Certificates of Vending (CoV) by the Town Vending Committee.
It also provides for vending zones and establishes a framework for regulating vending rather than simply eliminating it.
Importantly, where the number of eligible vendors exceeds the capacity of a particular vending zone, the law provides a prescribed mechanism for accommodating remaining vendors in an adjoining vending zone, where possible avoiding unnecessary relocation.
That changes the nature of the debate.
The question should not merely be:
“Is this vendor occupying public space?”
It should also be:
“Is this a legally recognised vendor, and if the existing location is unsuitable, what lawful alternative has been provided?”
SVPMC Appears to Recognise the Need for Regulation Rather Than Elimination
There is an important development that deserves attention.
In June 2026, SVPMC announced a ward-wise survey of street vendors, conducted through the Town Vending Committee under the 2014 Act. The survey ran from July 6 to August 1 and was intended to establish the genuineness of street vendors and facilitate the issuance of Certificates of Vending to eligible vendors.
Vendors were instructed to be physically present with their carts during the survey and provide identification and other required information.
That is significant.
It suggests that the municipality is not merely trying to remove street vending. It is attempting to identify, regulate and formally recognise eligible vendors.
The challenge, therefore, is ensuring that enforcement and recognition do not work against each other.
A Vendor Cannot Be Told to Become Legal and Simultaneously Lose the Opportunity to Become Legal
Imagine a small vendor who has depended on a particular location for years.
The municipality says:
“You need a Certificate of Vending.”
The vendor says:
“I am ready to register.”
The survey is conducted.
But before the vendor receives formal recognition, the vending location is cleared.
That creates a legitimate question:
How is the transition supposed to work?
The answer cannot simply be that vendors should move somewhere else.
A vending zone must be practical enough for a livelihood to survive.
A location where there are no customers may technically provide space but economically destroy the business.
This is particularly important for vendors selling perishable goods such as vegetables, fruits, milk products and prepared food.
For such vendors, location is not merely a convenience.
It is part of their livelihood.
There Is Already an Example of an Alternative Approach
In March 2026, SVPMC announced that it had developed a dedicated open market space at Junglighat for vendors who traditionally conduct Sunday vending activities.
The council described the space as an organised open market and encouraged local vendors to use it subject to applicable norms.
That is potentially the better model.
Instead of only asking:
“How do we remove vendors from here?”
the administration can ask:
“How do we organise vending so that roads and footpaths remain accessible while vendors can continue earning?”
That is the balance the law is designed to facilitate.
Public Convenience Matters — But So Does Economic Dignity
Nobody wants congested roads.
Nobody wants pedestrians forced onto busy streets because stalls have occupied footpaths.
Nobody wants government land to be permanently taken over by unauthorised structures.
But there is another reality that cannot be ignored.
For many small vendors, the cart or stall is not a side business. It is the business.
The person standing behind that cart may not have a shop, commercial property or substantial capital.
The difference between having a place to sell and having nowhere to sell can mean the difference between earning an income and earning nothing.
Urban management therefore has to be more sophisticated than simply clearing whatever looks untidy.
A city can be clean without becoming hostile to small livelihoods.
A footpath can remain accessible without eliminating every vendor.
A vending zone can be regulated without turning it into a punishment zone.
And enforcement can be firm without being economically blind.
The Questions SVPMC Should Answer
The ongoing process raises several legitimate public questions:
- How many street vendors have been identified within SVPMC's jurisdiction?
- How many currently possess valid Certificates of Vending?
- How many vendors have been removed from their previous locations?
- How many have been given alternative vending spaces?
- Which areas have been formally designated as vending zones?
- Which areas have been declared no-vending zones, and on whose recommendation?
- How many vendors have been relocated rather than simply evicted?
- What happens to vendors who were present for years but were not included in the latest survey?
- Are the same principles of public-space enforcement being applied consistently to large and small commercial interests?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are questions of transparency.
The Real Issue Is Not “Vendors Versus Government”
It is tempting to frame the story as a confrontation between street vendors and the municipality.
That would be too simplistic.
The municipality has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public roads, footpaths, sanitation, traffic movement and public land.
At the same time, the government has created a legal framework specifically recognising street vending as a livelihood that requires protection and regulation.
Therefore, the real issue is how the two responsibilities are reconciled.
If a structure is an illegal occupation of government land, remove it.
If a vendor is obstructing a road or footpath, regulate the location.
If a vending zone has reached capacity, follow the prescribed mechanism.
If a vendor qualifies under the law, provide the appropriate certificate.
And if relocation is necessary, provide a genuine alternative rather than merely telling a person to disappear from one street.
A Cleaner City Should Not Have to Mean an Emptier Livelihood
Sri Vijaya Puram has every right to demand orderly streets.
Its residents have every right to walk safely on footpaths.
The Administration has every right to protect government land.
But small vendors also have a right to expect that the law will distinguish between illegal occupation and regulated livelihood.
The success of municipal governance should not be measured only by how many stalls disappear after an eviction drive.
It should also be measured by whether the city can organise its public spaces without unnecessarily destroying the livelihoods of the people who depend on them.
The objective should not be a city with no vendors.
Nor should it be a city where public spaces are allowed to become chaotic.
The objective should be something more difficult — and more responsible:
A city where public space is protected, vending is regulated, and a poor person's livelihood is not treated as an encroachment merely because the person does not own a shop.
That is the balance Sri Vijaya Puram now has an opportunity to demonstrate.
Dweep Tulika | A Truthful & Unbiased Perspective