Presence of hawkers led to Elphinstone stampede: Bombay High Court

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday prohibited hawkers from conducting their businesses in non-hawking zones. While dismissing the hawkers’ contentions, the HC even referred to the ‘unfortunate’ incident of stampede at Elphinstone Road station.

A division bench of Justice Bhushan Gavai and Justice Makarand Karnik referred to the tragic incident and said that the “presence” of hawkers led to the incident. The judges said, “It will not be out of place to mention a recent unfortunate incident, which has occurred in the city of Mumbai on a narrow footover bridge (FOB). On account of the mad rush of the passengers, there was commotion on the bridge, which led to loss of 22 precious human lives. The presence of the large number of hawkers on the FOB is said to be one of the major contributing factor in the said mishap.”

Also Read: Railway Minister Piyush Goyal orders high-level enquiry in Mumbai stampede

“We are faced with a situation to balance the rights of the hawkers to do vending business to earn their livelihood on one hand and rights of the citizens to use the foot-paths and roads without causing any obstruction and also ensure their security on the other hand,” the judges added.

The judges said if they accept the contention of the hawkers that they are free to do hawking anywhere in the city, then there would be chaos in the city and everyone would be in a limbo. The judges said, “There will be no regulations to regulate the business of hawking. The Authorities will be powerless to take action against the hawkers, even if the business of hawking causes threat to free-flow of traffic and also causes threat to the security of citizens.”

“Imagine a situation wherein entrance of the hospital is flooded with the hawkers thereby even preventing access to a serious patient in the hospital. Imagine a situation wherein fire takes place in busy locality and on account of encroachment of hawkers on the roads, fire brigade is not in a position to reach the spot. Obviously, the legislative intent could not have been to permit all this,” the judges added.