Sh. Dharam Chand v. Chairman, NDMC & Ors.
Background
The appellant had been running a small squatter's stall (selling tea/goods from a kiosk) opposite the Supreme Court of India since being allotted the site by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) in 1999, following earlier Supreme Court-directed processes regulating street hawking in Delhi. In December 2013, NDMC's Enforcement Department ordered his relocation away from the site near the Supreme Court to a spot near Baroda House, citing security reasons; his challenges before a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court were both dismissed, leading to this appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's constitutional right to earn his livelihood but held that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against the security needs of sensitive areas such as the vicinity of the Supreme Court, noting that the authorities had produced confidential material citing bomb-blast threats to justify the relocation. The Court rejected the argument that no security incident had occurred near the Supreme Court to date as a reason to assume none would occur in future, holding that the administration's security assessment in such a sensitive zone could not be second-guessed by the Court. Finding the High Court's order required no interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the relocation order.
Lesson Learnt
A citizen's constitutional right to carry on a trade or business can be reasonably restricted by the government on genuine security grounds in sensitive areas, and courts will generally defer to the administration's security assessment rather than demand proof that an actual incident has already occurred.