How should cities reclaim footpaths?

Have enough grounded facts. Writing the study note now.

1. At a Glance

• Tests the friction between pedestrians' right to walk (now a Fundamental Right per Supreme Court, June 2026) and street vendors' right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g), regulated by the Street Vendors Act, 2014 [S4].
• Bengaluru's 'Safe Footpath' drive is a live case study of urban local bodies acting on the SC ruling while allegedly bypassing statutory procedure under the 2014 Act [S3].
• High-yield for GS-II (governance, welfare schemes, statutory bodies) and GS-I (urbanisation) — combines constitutional law, municipal administration, and livelihood policy.

2. Why in the News

• Following the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to walk on safe, obstruction-free footpaths as a Fundamental Right, Bengaluru's Development Minister Krishna Byre Gowda directed the five city corporations under the Greater Bengaluru Authority to launch a 10-day 'Safe Footpath' drive, removing thousands of street vendors and clearing encroachments [S3].
• The drive triggered scrutiny over whether removals complied with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, since corporations reportedly began removing vendors before the survey/certification mechanism mandated by the Act was in place [S3].
• SC judgment: Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. (2026), pronounced 19 June 2026, held the right to walk on demarcated footpaths is protected under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 [S1, S2].

3. Background & Evolution

• Street vending's legal recognition traces to repeated SC rulings holding it a 'legitimate' occupation protected under Article 19, subject to reasonable regulation — long predating the 2026 footpath ruling [S3].
• These earlier judgments arose from a recurring pattern: municipal bodies/police evicting vendors without notice, undermining livelihoods [S3].
• This jurisprudence culminated in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, which balances pedestrian access with vendor livelihood rights [S3, S4].
• 2026: SC's Maniyar Iliyaz ruling elevates pedestrians' footpath access to Fundamental Right status, creating an enforceable duty on Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats to demarcate, construct and maintain footpaths [S1, S2].
• July 2026: Bengaluru's 5 corporations (under Greater Bengaluru Authority) launch a 10-day enforcement drive, exposing implementation gaps in the 2014 Act [S3].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional - Creates a direct tension between two SC-recognised rights: pedestrians' Article 19(1)(d)/21 right to walk vs vendors' Article 19(1)(g) right to livelihood [S1, S2, S3]. - The 2026 ruling imposes an enforceable legal duty on municipal/urban bodies merely by virtue of a road's existence — a significant expansion of positive state obligations [S1, S2].

Administrative - Bengaluru case shows the classic administrative failure: enforcement outpacing statutory process — corporations removed vendors before the survey-and-certification mechanism (TVC → survey → CoV) was operational [S3]. - National data shows patchy TVC constitution and CoV issuance, indicating chronic under-implementation nearly a decade after the Act [S4].

Social - Street vendors are typically informal, low-income workers; eviction without due process risks livelihood loss disproportionate to the infraction [S3]. - Pedestrians, especially the elderly, disabled, and children, bear the cost of encroached footpaths — an equity issue on both sides.

Governance / Ethical - Raises the due-process question: can a fundamental right (to walk) be enforced by suspending statutory protections (survey requirement) for another right (livelihood)? [S3] - Tests municipal accountability and the sequencing of rights-balancing versus expedient drives.

Urban Planning - Points to the absence of integrated street design (dedicated vending zones) as a root cause of the pedestrian-vendor conflict.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 19 June 2026: SC delivers Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., declaring the right to walk on safe, demarcated footpaths a Fundamental Right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 [S1, S2].
• July 2026: Karnataka Development Minister Krishna Byre Gowda directs Greater Bengaluru Authority's five corporations to run a 10-day 'Safe Footpath' drive [S3].
• July 2026: Drive removes thousands of street vendors/encroachments; comes under scrutiny for allegedly bypassing Street Vendors Act, 2014 procedures (no completed survey/TVC mechanism before removals) [S3].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Right to walk on safe, demarcated footpaths declared a Fundamental Right by the Supreme Court on 19 June 2026 [S1, S2].
• Case name: Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan & Ors. (2026) [S1].
• Constitutional basis of the footpath right: Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) + Article 21 (right to life) — NOT Article 21 alone [S1, S2].
• Street vending recognised as a "legitimate occupation" under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable regulation [S3].
• Governing law for street vendors: Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 [S3, S4].
• Body responsible for identifying vendors and issuing certificates under the 2014 Act: Town Vending Committee (TVC) [S4].
• Document issued to a legally recognised vendor: Certificate of Vending (CoV), based on a municipal survey [S4].
• Precursor document to CoV: Letter of Recommendation (LoR) [S4].
• 14 states/UTs have issued more LoRs than CoVs; 3 states have issued zero CoVs — signals implementation lag [S4].
• Bengaluru's 'Safe Footpath' drive was a 10-day exercise ordered by Karnataka's Development Minister Krishna Byre Gowda [S3].
• The drive was executed by five city corporations under the Greater Bengaluru Authority [S3].
• The controversy: corporations began vendor removal before the Act's survey mechanism was in place [S3].

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Governance — Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors; issues arising from design and implementation of policies; welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; statutory bodies (Town Vending Committee).
• GS-II: Indian Constitution — significant provisions (Article 19, Article 21), Judiciary — SC judgments expanding fundamental rights.
• GS-I: Urbanisation, their problems and remedies.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The Supreme Court's recognition of the right to walk as a Fundamental Right must be reconciled with the statutory protections for street vendors under the 2014 Act. Discuss the administrative and legal challenges in balancing these rights." (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. "Examine the implementation gaps in the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, a decade after its enactment." (GS-II, 10 marks) 3. "Urban local bodies often resort to ad hoc enforcement drives instead of institutionalised mechanisms. Critically examine with reference to recent footpath-clearance drives in Indian cities." (GS-II/III, 15 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 — basis of urban local body powers and municipal governance.
• PM SVANidhi Scheme — credit support for street vendors, administratively linked to CoV/TVC data [S4].
• Right to Livelihood jurisprudence (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985) — foundational precedent linking livelihood to Article 21.
• Urban planning and Smart Cities Mission — infrastructure dimension of footpath/vending zone design.
• Informal sector and labour rights in India — broader socio-economic context of street vending.
• Judicial expansion of Article 21 — comparative study of rights carved out under "right to life" (health, environment, shelter, now walking).
• Model Street Vending Rules/State Rules (e.g., Karnataka Street Vendors Rules, 2016) — state-level implementation variance [S4].

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing the Town Vending Committee (TVC) with Municipal Corporations — TVCs are specific statutory bodies under the 2014 Act, distinct from general municipal administration [S4].
• Mixing up Letter of Recommendation (LoR) and Certificate of Vending (CoV) — LoR precedes CoV; having an LoR does not equal formal vending certification [S4].
• Assuming the 2026 SC footpath ruling is based solely on Article 21 — it explicitly invokes Article 19(1)(d) together with Article 21 [S1, S2].
• Attributing the Bengaluru drive to the Greater Bengaluru Authority alone — it was directed by the state's Development Minister and executed by five corporations under the GBA [S3].
• Assuming street vending is illegal/unprotected — SC has repeatedly held it a "legitimate occupation" under Article 19(1)(g), merely subject to regulation, not prohibition [S3].

11. Sources

• [S1] Supreme Court Declares Right to Walk a Fundamental Right — https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/supreme-court-declares-right-to-walk-a-fundamental-right — (tier: 4)
• [S2] Right To Walk On Safe, Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right: SC — https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/right-to-walk-on-safe-demarcated-footpaths-is-a-fundamental-right-sc-18540.asp — (tier: 4)
• [S3] "How should cities reclaim footpaths?" — The Hindu, 24 July 2026 — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-07-24/th_chennai/articleGS4G9U6GR-15612474.ece — (tier: 4)
• [S4] Implementation of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — PRS India — https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/implementation-of-street-vendors-protection-of-livelihood-and-regulation-of-street-vending-act-2014 — (tier: 1)