If the Street Must Be Cleared, Let the Rules Apply to Everyone

Action against a street vendor cannot become a symbol of selective enforcement; Hisar’s anti-encroachment drive must also scrutinize showrooms and large commercial establishments

Hisar | SDNA

A video showing the belongings of a woman street vendor being thrown away during an anti-encroachment drive in Hisar has triggered a question far larger than the fate of one roadside cart: Does the law apply equally to everyone?

There is no dispute that public roads, footpaths and pedestrian passages must remain free from illegal occupation. Removing encroachments is an important responsibility of the municipal administration. But the credibility of any such campaign is ultimately tested not when it confronts a powerful commercial establishment, but when it deals with someone whose livelihood depends on a small roadside cart.

If the rules are universal, their enforcement must also be universal.

The Real Test Is Not the Action, But Its Consistency

A street vendor occupying public space can legitimately face action if the rules are violated. But the same standard must be applied to shops, showrooms and other commercial establishments.

If a few feet of public space occupied by a roadside vendor constitutes an encroachment, then goods displayed beyond the permitted boundary of a showroom, large advertising boards extending onto footpaths, temporary structures, barricaded commercial spaces and merchandise spilling towards the road should also come under the same scrutiny.

The central question, therefore, is not simply who was removed. It is whether every illegal occupation is being treated with the same seriousness.

When Small Encroachments Become More Visible Than Big Ones

The vulnerability of a street vendor is often visible to everyone. Large commercial encroachments, however, can gradually become part of the urban landscape and may even appear normal when they remain unchallenged for years.

If that happens, the issue is no longer merely one of encroachment. It becomes a question of administrative neutrality.

The municipal corporation should consider conducting a market-wise survey and publicly identifying commercial and roadside encroachments found beyond permitted limits. Publishing details of notices issued and action taken could bring greater transparency to the process and reduce allegations of selective enforcement.

A Cart Is Also a Livelihood

For thousands of small vendors, a cart is not simply an object occupying a pavement. It is their workplace, their investment and often the primary source of household income.

Vegetable sellers, fruit vendors, food sellers, garment vendors and people selling everyday household products operate with limited capital. Women are also an important part of this informal economy.

That does not mean public spaces should be left unregulated. It means that regulation should distinguish between illegal encroachment and legitimate street vending.

The legal framework for street vendors in Haryana provides mechanisms such as surveys, registration, vending zones and Town Vending Committees. The objective is to bring street vending within an organized framework without unnecessarily destroying the livelihood of people dependent on it.

Where a vendor cannot operate at a particular location, the administration should therefore also consider lawful alternative vending spaces rather than treating removal as the only solution.

Administrative Power Must Come With Administrative Restraint

There is another dimension that cannot be ignored: the manner in which enforcement is carried out.

A violation of rules may invite a notice, challan, removal of goods or seizure through the legally prescribed procedure. But enforcement authority does not give anyone the right to humiliate, intimidate or mistreat a citizen.

If the conduct visible in the circulating video is indeed part of the actual incident, an impartial inquiry would be appropriate. At the same time, the complete facts should be established before drawing final conclusions from a video clip alone.

The municipal authorities should clarify what happened that day, which officials were responsible for the operation, whether the vendor had received prior notice, what procedure was followed for removing or seizing her belongings and whether she was given an opportunity to recover her property under the applicable rules.

If misconduct or procedural violations are established, responsibility must follow.

That is not about weakening the morale of enforcement personnel. It is about reinforcing a basic principle: those who enforce the law are also bound by the law.

Why Begin With the Weakest?

The larger concern is whether anti-encroachment campaigns are being designed as comprehensive urban reforms or merely as periodic drives against the most visible and vulnerable occupants.

If Hisar genuinely wants cleaner and more organized markets, the campaign should examine the entire commercial ecosystem—permanent and temporary footpath occupations, goods placed outside shops, oversized boards, temporary structures and other commercial extensions onto public land.

The public should also be able to see what action has been taken.

Transparency can answer a simple but powerful question: Are the rules meant only for those with the least ability to resist them?

Public Space Belongs to the Public

A city cannot define cleanliness and order only through its polished commercial facades.

The footpath occupied by merchandise from a major showroom belongs to the public just as much as the footpath occupied by a poor woman’s small cart. The size of a business, its financial strength or its social influence cannot determine who gets to use public space.

The law—not economic status—must decide.

Hisar Can Turn the Controversy Into Reform

The current debate could become an opportunity for the municipal administration to build a more transparent system.

A comprehensive digital survey of markets could identify the permitted boundaries of shops and showrooms. Clearly designated vending zones could be created for street vendors. Footpaths could be reserved for pedestrians. Vendors and commercial establishments could receive clear notices before enforcement, followed by action according to established procedures.

Special attention should also be given to ensuring dignified treatment of women and other vulnerable sections during enforcement operations.

Such a system would not weaken anti-encroachment efforts. On the contrary, it would make them more credible.

Order Without Humiliation

Removing encroachments is necessary for a functioning city. But the process of removing encroachments must not itself become an instrument of injustice.

Hisar needs orderly roads, accessible footpaths and disciplined markets. But it also needs an administration that citizens can trust.

If a poor vendor violates the rules, the law can require her to comply. If necessary, penalties can be imposed through due process. But humiliation cannot be part of enforcement.

And if a large commercial establishment occupies public space beyond its permitted limits, the same firmness must be visible there as well.

The message from the administration should be unmistakable:

A street vendor and a showroom may differ in size, but they cannot be governed by two different standards of law.

Clear the roads.
Protect the footpaths.
Enforce the rules.
But do not crush a poor person’s dignity in the name of urban order.

Hisar should become not merely encroachment-free, but fairer, more transparent and more humane.

Dr. Priyanka Saurabh, PhD (Political Science), is a poet and social thinker.

(SDNA)