Mumbai: Bombay HC Seeks Clarity from BMC on Domicile Rule for Hawkers

Mumbai, 8th February 2025: The Bombay High Court on Friday sought clarification from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on whether a domicile certificate is mandatory for hawkers to conduct business on Mumbai’s streets.

This query arose during a hearing on petitions filed by hawkers’ unions, who contested the Town Vending Committee (TVC) elections held in August last year. The petitioners alleged that approximately 77,000 hawkers were excluded from the process, leaving only 22,000 on the final list of verified voters.

According to the petitioners, a 2014 survey identified 99,435 hawkers, but only 22,000 were deemed eligible for last year’s elections. They argued that one of the key reasons for exclusion was the absence of a domicile certificate.

“Is a domicile certificate necessary? Should there be a policy mandating it? Can anyone set up a business in this state without one?” the bench questioned, seeking details on whether other states require domicile certificates for hawking.

A division bench of Justices Ajey S. Gadkari and Kamal R. Khata was informed by senior advocate Kevic Setalvad that while the TVC elections took place last year, the results remain pending due to a Supreme Court order, which has restricted the civic body from making further decisions.

Senior advocates Gayatri Singh and Mihir Desai, representing the hawkers’ unions, pointed out that criteria such as lack of a domicile certificate and having an alternative source of income were among the reasons for exclusion.

The court then asked BMC to explain the significant reduction in voter numbers and sought an estimate of the time required to complete the election process if fresh polls were to be conducted after re-evaluating the hawkers’ list.

“If a reasonable explanation is provided, the petitions from the hawkers’ associations can be resolved. Nobody wants to deal with the issue of illegal hawkers daily. Everyone should be allowed to conduct business in compliance with the law,” the bench observed.

It further directed, “Present the hawking policies of other states. We will examine whether domicile is necessary. Also, provide details on the legal framework, the steps taken by BMC so far, the challenges faced, and possible measures to streamline the process. Addressing these concerns will resolve most of the grievances raised in the petitions. This is just a discussion, not our final opinion.”

The bench has sought BMC’s response and scheduled the next hearing for February 24.