Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) launched a massive campaign to clear pavements of encroachments across the city, removing permanent structures, street vendor pushcarts, boards, construction materials and other materials. The drive drew support from a lot of citizens who expressed relief that officials were removing encroachments to make it easier to walk.
Even as officials from GBA fanned out across the city on Wednesday, July 1, to remove encroachments, many vendors who had been asked to leave returned to the same spots within hours, saying they had nowhere else to go.
The 'Safe Footpath' campaign, which began at 10 am on Wednesday, July 1, aims to clear footpaths on key arterial and sub-arterial roads identified as encroached over the past few weeks. The exercise, being carried out in coordination with the Bengaluru Traffic Police, is expected to continue until July 10 and spans multiple constituencies across the city.
Last week, Bengaluru Development Minister Krishna Byre Gowda had instructed officials to follow the recent Supreme Court judgement which said that the right to walk safely on demarcated footpath was a fundamental right and the Street Vendors Act. If pavement encroachments continued beyond June 30, the corporation would remove them and impose heavy penalties, he had said.
TNM visited JC Nagar, Chickpet, Jayanagar, Vijayanagar and Basavanagudi to understand what the footpath clearance drive meant for vendors directly affected by it.
No prior notice was given
Several vendors in Vijayanagar alleged that officials carried out the evictions without prior notice and in violation of the Street Vendors Act. Shashikala, a street vendor and member of the Town Vending Committee (TVC), said vendors had repeatedly sought a meeting with the authorities but had received no response. "We have given many letters to the GBA Commissioner to call us for a meeting... not even one notice or piece of information was given to us; they just came and evicted us suddenly," she said.
She said the law required authorities to first identify an alternative site and provide rehabilitation measures before carrying out evictions, adding that the sudden drive had left vendors anxious about their future.
Among those affected was Ramesh, a 65-year-old onion vendor who said he had spent nearly four decades selling produce in Vijayanagar. He alleged that officials arrived without warning, accompanied by police personnel, and seized vendors' carts and belongings.
Calling the action "nothing but GBA's high-handedness", Ramesh said vending was his family's only source of income and that conditions for traders had become increasingly difficult over the past two years.
At JC Nagar, vendors who had reportedly been evicted earlier in the day had already left by the time TNM reached the area. However, a few fruit sellers had returned to the same spot and resumed business, saying they had little choice.
"The officials came in the morning and asked us to leave. We packed up because we had no option, but we came back later. This is how we earn our daily income, and we cannot afford to lose an entire day's business," one fruit vendor said.
Another vendor said, "If they don't want us here, they should give us another place to sell. We are not against following the rules, but we need somewhere to work."
Several vendors said they recognised the need to keep footpaths accessible for pedestrians but argued that any enforcement drive should be accompanied by rehabilitation measures and designated vending spaces. Many said they did not know where they would be allowed to work in the coming days and feared losing their livelihoods.
However, the eviction drive drew mixed reactions online and on the ground. While a section of residents welcomed the move, saying Bengaluru's footpaths had long been rendered unusable by encroachments and needed to be reclaimed for pedestrians, others accused the government of selectively targeting street vendors and the urban poor while turning a blind eye to encroachments by influential establishments and the wealthy.
City-wide intense drive
The drive is being carried out constituency-wise across Bengaluru. In Govindaraj Nagar, officials are clearing stretches from Ganapathi Circle to Madduramma Circle in Chandra Layout and from BGS Ground to Shobha Hospital. The campaign is also underway near Palike Bazaar in Vijayanagar, along a 1.5-km stretch of Sampige Road in Malleswaram and on 12th Main Road in Rajajinagar 2nd Block from Bhashyam Circle to the RTO Complex.
In south Bengaluru, the exercise covers Police Station Road, DVG Road and Kathriguppe Main Road in Basavanagudi, stretches in Yediyur division including 24th Cross and 80 Feet Road, and key roads in Bengaluru South such as Dr Vishnuvardhan Road, Kothnur Village Road and Vishwapriya Layout Main Road. Encroachments are also being cleared in Padmanabhanagar along the Outer Ring Road, in Jayanagar on 30th Cross and 21st Main in J.P. Nagar, and in BTM Layout on 14th Main Road, Jyothi Nivas College Road and 7th Main Road in BTM 2nd Stage.
The exercise also extended across the Shanthinagar, CV Raman Nagar, Chickpet, Chamrajpet, Gandhinagar and Shivajinagar divisions. Footpaths on 15 key roads, including M.G. Road, Indiranagar's 100 Feet Road, Old Madras Road and Kempegowda Road, were also cleared.
At Vijayanagar, Babu, president of the Vijayanagar Street Vendors' Association, alleged that officials had begun removing vendors' goods and even items kept outside shops by their owners.
He told TNM that GBA officials arrived at around 3.30 pm and started the exercise. He maintained that the drive violated provisions of the Street Vendors Act.
"What they're doing is illegal," he said, adding that under Section 18, the Act mandated that notices were to be issued to vendors, giving them 30 days to move. "We will oppose any illegal act."
According to Babu, no street vendor can be evicted before the local body conducts a survey and allots identity cards. He also said that vendors could file complaints against civic authorities or the police under Section 27 of the Act but alleged that no authority ever registered such complaints.
GBA officials threatening vendors with Minister’s statement
Vendors across Bengaluru had already expressed concerns ahead of the drive, alleging that civic officials were using statements made by Krishna Byre Gowda on clearing encroachments to threaten them. The Karnataka Pragathipara Beedi Vyaparigala Sangha, an AICCTU-affiliated union representing street vendors, had urged the minister to meet its representatives before commencing the campaign.
In a statement issued on June 29, the union said, "Even before any official order is issued, the municipal corporations under the GBA are misusing the minister's statement and threatening to evict street vendors. This has created anxiety among street vendors across the city."
The union pointed out that under the Street Vendors Act, vendors are legitimate users of public spaces and that many had already been surveyed by authorities, availed loans under the PM SVANidhi scheme and been members of registered trade unions. It also noted that the law requires a 30-day notice before eviction.
Union members argued that municipal corporations should have surveyed all vendors, formed Town Vending Committees and created vending zones where they could legally carry out their trade. "But the authorities have not done these things. Instead, they are targeting us as squatters. According to Section 3(3) of the Street Vendors Act, no one can be evicted without a survey and registration of all the street vendors."
Advocate Vinay Sreenivasan, an office-bearer of the Karnataka Pragathipara Beedi Vyaparigala Sangha, alleged that Krishna Byre Gowda's statements on clearing vendors from main roads had created confusion on the ground, with officials carrying out evictions even in areas that were not arterial roads.
Referring to the action in Vijayanagar, he said, "This is a service road. This is not a main road. And still officials have come to evict. They have tried to seize carts. They have seized tables. And there is a lot of anxiety among vendors."
Vinay said the uncertainty had particularly affected vulnerable vendors, including senior citizens and women-headed households. He argued that a blanket decision to declare 1,500 km of main roads as non-vending zones was not legally tenable. It was the Congress government that brought the Street Vendors Act, he said, adding that the law required a survey of all vendors and the constitution of Town Vending Committees, which would then determine vending, non-vending and restricted vending zones.
According to Vinay, the BBMP's survey covered only around 26,000 vendors even though the civic body had extended loans to more than 80,000 street vendors under various schemes, indicating that a large number of vendors remained outside the survey process.
Questioning the basis for declaring major roads as non-vending zones, he said, "So how does Mr Gowda decide that, okay, because I have decided, I think so, that 1,500 kilometres of main road have to be declared as non-vending zones? It does not make any sense."
Vinay also argued that street vendors contribute to public safety and urban life. He said police personnel had told the union that chain-snatching incidents had increased in some areas after vendors were evicted, citing Kaveri Nagar as an example.
He said vending remained a vital source of livelihood for the urban poor, who were not seeking government assistance but only the right to work within the framework of the law.
Incomplete implementation of the Street Vendors Act
Vinay further argued that many of Bengaluru's footpaths were wide enough to accommodate both pedestrians and vendors. "So rich people are allowed to park on the same roadside, but street vendors are not allowed to vend on the same roadside. This is not a problem of space. This is a problem of design and of political will," he said.
"The question really is, does Bengaluru belong only to the elite, or does Bengaluru belong to the poor also? In Brand Bengaluru, do the poor have any space? That is the main question that we are asking," he added.
The drive has also renewed attention on Bengaluru's incomplete implementation of the Street Vendors Act, which seeks to balance pedestrian rights with vendors' livelihoods. The law mandates surveys of street vendors, the formation of Town Vending Committees, issuance of vending certificates and scientific identification of vending zones after assessing road widths, pedestrian movement and carrying capacity.
The then BBMP had conducted a large-scale survey and identified nearly 30,000 vendors across Bengaluru. More than 230 potential vending zones containing around 7,000 vending spots were also identified. However, not a single vending zone has been officially notified, no vendor has received a vending identity card under the latest survey exercise, and Town Vending Committees have not been constituted.
The transition from the BBMP to the Greater Bengaluru Authority appears to have stalled much of this work.
Over the years, governments have also announced measures to address the issue. Chief Minister DK Shivakumar had earlier spoken about providing mobile vending vehicles to street vendors so that they could continue their trade without permanently occupying footpaths. A budgetary allocation of Rs 42 crore was announced for the proposal. Vendors, however, say the scheme never moved beyond the announcement stage.
The issue resurfaced after Krishna Byre Gowda announced the city-wide drive to clear footpaths and arterial roads. When asked where displaced vendors should go, he told the Times of India that they could operate on inner roads.
"They can vend on inside roads and avoid all the main roads. About vending zones, all inside roads are vending zones only, right? They should at least make the arterial road footpaths free," he told the Times of India.