Meghalaya
,
Shillong
,
East Khasi Hills
Published :
Jan 2026
|
Updated :
Negotiating urban space: Livelihood and rehabilitation concerns after Hawkers' eviction in Shillong’s Police Bazaar
Reported by
Sarup Sinha
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Rakshit Dhingra
Edited by
Anupa Kujur
Households affected
People affected
2025
Year started
ha.
Land area affected
Households affected
People Affected
2025
Year started
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Other Kind of Land Use
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Unclassifed
Sector
Land Use
Reason/Cause of conflict
Other Kind of Land Use
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

Street vendors and hawkers in Shillong are protesting against evictions by the Shillong Municipal Board (SMB). The evictions began on 30 June 2025, as officials removed unauthorised vendors from an area designated as a “no vending zone.” 

Previously, a government notice had declared Police Bazaar a no-vending zone. While authorities argue that the eviction is part of efforts to declutter the city’s commercial hub, hawkers argue it's unfair and in violation of legal protocols.

Witnesses reported chaos during the eviction, with vendors trying to reclaim their goods that officials had taken. For over a week, the SMB had warned vendors without valid Certificates of Vending to vacate the footpaths and ordered them to stop displaying items outside.

Hawker organisations claim that the eviction operation violated legal procedures and fundamental rights. The Meghalaya and Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers and Street Vendors Association (MGSPHSVA), Provisional Town Vending Committee and the Shillong Roadside Hawkers Association (SRHA) condemned the evictions as unlawful and lacking transparency.

Angela Rangad of Thma U Rangli Juki, a collective supporting MGSPHSVA, criticised the relocation process. “We will not allow the SMB to forcefully evict the hawkers. We are not saying we won’t shift, but any relocation must be based on proper conditions and a transparent process,” Rangad told the press. Angela also raised concerns about the safety and appropriateness of the MUDA complex as the new vending zone.

Additionally, Rangad mentioned that the digital survey used to identify legitimate vendors was inaccurate. “A woman who has been selling here for over 30 years is not getting a license, while people who own large shops have been issued hawker licenses. This shows how broken the system is,” she said.

The SRHA has petitioned the SMB to halt the eviction drive and revoke the no-vending zone status for the Police Bazaar. SRHA President T Nongbri argued that the area qualifies as a “natural market” under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The association pointed out the lack of basic amenities (like drinking water, toilets, and electricity) in the proposed new site and asked for compensation for affected vendors.

On 3 July 2025, the Meghalaya High Court stepped in after a petition from the hawkers association, appointing a Special Officer to oversee the eviction. The court directed the officer to ensure the process is orderly and to prepare a verified list of licensed vendors. As a temporary measure, the court allowed licensed vendors to operate in Police Bazaar during specific hours, as long as they did not obstruct traffic or pedestrian movement. Unlicensed vendors, however, are still prohibited.

The state government has identified three alternative sites for vendor relocation and announced a relocation allowance of Rs 20,000 for each eligible vendor.

According to the hearing dated 10 December 2025, the Provisional Town Vending Committee (PTVC) was working on finalising the list of the street vendors and the designated vending zones have been duly notified by the government. The sub-committee of PTVC for the purpose of verification of claims and objections is formulating a standard operating procedure for the purpose of hearing of claims and objections with the approval of the Hawkers’ Association. The location of the hawkers is expected to be completed by the first week of January 2026.

The matter is listed for hearing on 28 January 2026.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Common

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Commercial

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

4
Additional Information

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Shillong Municipal Board; Meghalaya Urban Development Authority; District Administration of East Khasi Hills

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Meghalaya & Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers & Street Vendors Association; Shillong Roadside Hawkers Association; Thma U Rangli Juki

5
Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Legal Supporting Documents

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Author
Reported by
Sarup Sinha

Sarup is a researcher and doctoral student in Political Science at the North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong. His research interests lie in the area of ethnic and land conflicts, political ecology and development and urban spaces of Northeast India. He has a Masters’ degree in Development Studies from the Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati. He has previously done research/internships with NABARD, Oxford Microfinance Initiative (renamed Oxford Development Consultancy) and CSDS (Lokniti Programme).

Show more work
Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Complaint against procedural violations

Demand for better access to common land/resources

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Commercial

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

JOIN
THE LCW COMMUNITY
Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, Quarterly Analytics report, Curated Expert talks, merchandise and much more.


Support our work.
Sign Up Today
Conflicts Map
Conflict Database
About Us