In an ongoing effort to fix Chandigarh's street vending chaos, the Supreme Court reviews the city's progress on relocating vendors, clearing encroachments, and processing thousands of license cancellation appeals. Along the way, it strikes down a 2020 pandemic-era rule that had quietly stretched the definition of 'essential service' to cover chhole bhature and paratha stalls - letting them dodge zone restrictions meant for everyone else - and orders a fresh round of accountability measures.
"I make my living selling on Chandigarh's streets, just like thousands of other vendors trying to earn an honest day's wage. The city keeps running these crackdown drives, issuing thousands of challans, and canceling licenses when we fall behind on fees - but where is the support to actually help us relocate to the designated vending zones they've set up? Half of us don't even know where these zones are, whether they have basic things like water or a toilet, or how we're supposed to survive the disruption of leaving our regular customers behind. And to make it worse, some vendors got special treatment during COVID under an 'essential services' rule that let them keep operating anywhere, anytime - long after the pandemic ended - while the rest of us are held to strict zone rules. It doesn't feel like enforcement. It feels like some of us are being punished while others get a permanent pass."
Moral Universe
The narrative frames the case as ordinary working vendors caught between a legitimate need for urban order and a municipal enforcement machinery that seems more focused on punitive measures (challans, cancellations) than on genuinely supporting the transition it is asking vendors to make.
Emotional Driver
A mix of anxiety about livelihood security and a sense of unfairness at watching some vendors enjoy special, seemingly outdated privileges while others face strict enforcement without adequate support.
Objective
To see the city genuinely follow through on relocating vendors to functional, properly equipped vending zones, resolve pending license disputes fairly and promptly, and eliminate special exemptions that create an uneven playing field among vendors.
Blind Spots
The narrative's framing of enforcement as purely punitive does not fully engage with the city's own detailed account of its efforts - registering nearly 11,000 vendors, appointing dedicated nodal officers, rolling out smart ID cards, and resolving the large majority of pending appeals - suggesting a more genuinely mixed picture of progress and shortcoming than pure grievance alone would capture.
Inherent Tensions
- —The demand for full, verified relocation support sits against the practical reality that a city-wide vendor relocation and infrastructure buildout of this scale takes considerable time, even with genuine administrative effort.
- —The frustration at license cancellations sits against the city's own account that cancellation was used only as a last resort, following notice and a 30-day opportunity to pay outstanding dues.
- —The push to eliminate the 'Essential Service Provider' exemption entirely competes with the reality that some genuinely essential, small-scale services (like milk or bread vendors) may still warrant limited special treatment - the real problem being the exemption's overextension to ordinary food stalls, not the underlying concept itself.