Court case(1989) 4 SCC 155

Hawkers who sold goods from the pavements of Delhi were prevented by the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from carrying on their trade. They petitioned under Article 32, claiming that the right to carry on business on the pavements was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) and that depriving them of it took away their livelihood contrary to Article 21.

Sharma J held that the right to carry on trade or business on public streets, including pavements, is included in Article 19(1)(g), because street trading is an age-old vocation and the public streets are meant not only for passing and repassing but for other reasonable uses. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6): the municipality may regulate the places, times and manner of hawking, may refuse hawking where it would obstruct traffic or cause nuisance, and a hawker has no right to occupy a particular spot permanently or to build structures. The Article 21 claim was rejected: the right to carry on a trade on a particular street is not part of the right to life, and Olga Tellis, which concerned eviction from dwellings, did not help the hawkers. The Court directed the municipal authorities to frame schemes identifying hawking and non-hawking zones.