The Street Vendors Act (SVA), 2014 defines stationary and mobile vendors. It does not mention weekly vendors. Not much literature about weekly vendors is available. Often the discourse on street vending is about stationary vendors, and sometimes about mobile vendors. We do not know how many weekly vendors are out there and how many of them are surveyed or registered. Many of them vend at different locations on a rotational basis, and so their enumeration poses a challenge. This compendium identifies the stakeholders competing with weekly vendors for public space, questions the notions of a Certificate of Vending (CoV), looks at the exclusionary policies related to weekly vendors, highlights the patchy attempts at formalisation, flags inconsistent implementation of the law and analyses the judiciary’s attitude towards these vendors. 

Some key findings include: 

First, weekly vendors are peculiar in terms of rotational vending locations and so their enumeration and formalisation must take that into account. Ambiguity in terms of recording vending spots on CoV will further favor the public officials and work against the vendors. 

Second, the conditions for issuance of a CoV are unnecessary, impractical and unenforceable. Perhaps, the government knows that well and hence it is not even attempting to enforce these conditions. Still, it is best to do away with these conditions. 

Third, there is no procedure either in the law or the Delhi Scheme to identify and declare a heritage market and natural market. GNCTD should amend the scheme to insert suitable provisions.