Finally, we see some real light at the end of a very dark tunnel and  have some really good news to share with Manushi friends.
On April 2^nd 2012 Manushi won a major victory in a long drawn battle to dismantle the corruption friendly License Quota Raid Raj for rickshaw owners and pullers. On this date the Supreme Court of India dismissed the plea of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenging the historic judgment of the Delhi High Court of February 10, 2010 scrapping the lawless cycle rickshaw policy and regulations on the ground that it is discriminatory, violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional.

We had reason to celebrate this High court Order of 10 February 2010, but avoided doing so because we knew that until the appeal filed against it in the Supreme Court was dealt with, it would be premature to celebrate. Had the Supreme Court yielded to the arguments put forward by the Delhi Government, the Delhi Police and the Municipal Corporation, it would have meant going back to square one.

A bench headed by Supreme Court Justice G S Singhvi dismissed the plea of the civic body that restrictive quotas for cycle rickshaws were necessary in order to reduce road congestion. MCD had pleaded that it should continue to have the right to confiscate unlicensed rickshaws and crush them into junk. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, Justice Singhvi asked the government counsel: "Do you dare confiscate and junk cars, the way you do with rickshaws? Do you even dare confiscate and destroy cars of those owners who indulge in drunken driving and mow down people? We know your mindset and how you treat the poor."

It is noteworthy that the constitutional bench of the High Court had actually overruled an earlier order of the Supreme Court which had legitimized confiscation and junking of rickshaws. (Hemraj vs. MCD case W.P. (C) 3419/1999.) This in itself is rare. And yet, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Singhvi ruled that they did not find any infirmity in the High Court order and no merit in the MCD petition challenging that order.  

Apart from declaring the existing rickshaw policy unconstitutional, Justice Shah took a very astute decision   by directing the Delhi Government to constitute a Task Force to evolve a more rational policy that treats Non Motorized Vehicles (NMVs) as an integral part of the public transport system instead of pursuing hostile policies aimed at eliminating NMVs. (For the full text of the High Court order click here). This meant that the Delhi government can not escape responsibility for creating a new law and instituting a more sensible policy for NMVs.

In 2001-2002, Manushi had calculated that cycle rickshaw owners and pullers of Delhi lose at least Rs 3600 million a year on account of the devious licensing regime that trapped virtually every rickshaw owner and puller in a web of illegality.  Despite regular bribes to the police and municipal staff, rickshaw owners suffered huge losses due to routine confiscation and destruction of their vehicles by the municipality.

In our High Court petition we had demanded that the cycle rickshaw sector be:

• Treated as an integral part of the public transport system and recognize it as a legitimate trade, and demanded that the pullers be considered full citizens with all the rights and status of workers in a legitimate occupation. 
• Provided year round open registration as opposed to restrictive licensing.
• Freed from discriminatory laws such as the "Owner must be Puller" requirement.
• Freed from arbitrary quotas on the number of rickshaws that can ply in the city. 
• Freed from the threat of confiscation and destruction of the vehicle under the guise of decongesting the City.
• Provided separate tracks, as part of giving due space to all forms of non motorized vehicles; 
• Brought under fee based regulation of numbers rather than arbitrary bureaucratic quotas.
• Provided affordable space for repair yards, night parking lots and stands for halts between commutes.
• Provided assistance to upgrade rickshaw technology so that rickshaw pulling involves less physical strain.

In the last few decades, rickshaw technology has actually deteriorated because the ever looming threat of confiscation discouraged rickshaw owners from investing in improving rickshaw technology.

Even though our PIL focused on the cycle rickshaw sector in Delhi, the rules and regulations that MANUSHI is endeavoring to reform are not very different in other cities of India or for other occupational groups working in the informal economy.-such as street vendors. Therefore, it is bound to have a ripple effect for rickshaw pullers in other cities as well and also hopefully for street vendors.  It may strengthen our petition which we intend to file in the Supreme Court for review and reconsideration of certain harmful orders of the Supreme Court with regard to street vendors.

Immediate gains from the High Court Order, now upheld also by the Supreme Court of India:

1) End to lawless confiscation of rickshaws:  Municipal inspectors or police cannot anymore use the authority of law to forcefully impound thousands of cycle rickshaws every month, which they were doing for decades for offences ranging from

It took a minimum fine of Rs 325 plus Rs 100 per day as store charges for a rickshaw to be released after being confiscated on mostly imaginary offences. In addition, the owner had to pay a minimum of Rs 100 for getting legal papers made for release of the vehicle. On top of it, MCD employees asked for speed money. At an average, it took Rs 600-800 to get a vehicle released. This amounts to nearly half the cost of a second hand vehicle or 1/6^th the cost of a new vehicle. For trolley rickshaws carrying goods, the bribe amount demanded could range from Rs 2000 to Rs 5000 depending on the goods being carried by the puller. The higher the value of goods, the higher the demanded bribe. We submitted several video recordings of and affidavits from rickshaw owners/ pullers describing the harassment and the amount paid in bribes. Those who could not pay the demanded sums ended up losing the vehicle. 

2. No more crushing of confiscated rickshaws by the municipal authorities and selling them as junk.  Till the Supreme Court endorsed the High Court order of 2010, MCD inspectors had the power of law behind them when they crushed thousands of rickshaws after arbitrarily confiscating them on the most absurd charges.

For a video clip of two of the many municipal yards for dumping confiscated rickshaws and to hear a rickshaw owner describe some of the strategems of municipal employees for extortion click here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrOKOGY_YVo&feature=youtu.be

3.  No more arbitrary quotas and caps on the number of cycle rickshaws: Earlier the Municipal Corporation had a policy of putting an arbitrary cap on the number of licenses to be issued to cycle rickshaws. It began with a quota of 600 in 1960's.  It was upped to 20,000 in 1976 and 50,000 in 1993.  In 1997 it was raised to 99,000 and then whimsically reduced to 52,000 in 2007.  However, as per the submissions made by the Municipal Corporation in the High Court, there are at least 600,000 to 700,000 rickshaws plying in Delhi. But, due to several devious regulations even the 52,000 supposedly licensed rickshaws had been trapped in a complex web of illegality which rendered literally every single rickshaw liable to confiscation and destruction as described below.

4.   No more harassment or confiscation of the vehicle if the rickshaw puller is not the owner of the vehicle: The Cycle Rickshaw Bye-Laws of 1960 mandated that no one could ply a rickshaw without being its owner. And one needed two licenses to ply a rickshaw-a pullers' license as well as ownership license. Failure to procure either one of the two licenses invited confiscation and destruction of the vehicle.  It was illegal to rent a rickshaw - a "crime" punishable with confiscation and destruction of the vehicle.  The High Court agreed with our submission that since it is not illegal to own a fleet of airplanes, trucks, buses and taxis, why should owning more than one rickshaw be treated as a legal offence punishable with confiscation and destruction of the vehicle? The High Court also endorsed our plea that since renting or leasing out a taxi airplane or a bus is not illegal, it is patently discriminatory to treat renting out a rickshaw as an offence.  A person who owns an airplane is not required to fly it himself or else risk confiscation.  Why then should a rickshaw owner be denied the freedom to lease out his vehicle on hire? 

This patently absurd restriction has been justified using a very socialist sounding rhetoric: "land to the tiller, rickshaw only to the puller."

Municipal officials piously claimed  that this restriction was meant to protect the hapless rickshaw puller from the greed of the owners whom they defamed as rickshaw mafia.  But in actual fact, the risk of confiscation became the biggest disincentive to owning a rickshaw.  Similarly, the restriction on renting or lending one's rickshaw to another person meant a person had to be permanently based in Delhi and have arrangements for safe keeping of rickshaws at night.  Since most pullers leave their families back in the village, it is completely impractical for them to own a rickshaw if they are not allowed to let even a blood relative ply the rickshaw when they go to visit their village based families. 

Video interviews of pullers explaining why it is not viable for pullers to own their own rickshaw. Click here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vScTHccy02s&feature=youtu.be

In fact, MCD came down heavily on rickshaw pullers who dared to buy their own vehicles. To begin with, pullers are not given ownership licenses unless they bring high sifarish. To quote Chander Singh Mehrat, "it is easier to get an MLA or MP ticket for fighting elecetions but much harder for a puller to get license to own and ply a rickshaw.  

This is because MCD employees find it much easier to collect bribes from fleet owners who own multiple vehicles since they have to have fixed rickshaw yards. That makes it easy for them to collect monthly hafta per vehicle. In addition, they get winded and dined when they go to collect dues. If they gave licenses to individual pullers, it would be much harder for the bribe collecting mafia to keep track of lakhs of individual pullers who are constantly moving and most do not even have a regular address.Thus in the interest of efficiency in bribe collection,the rare puller who dared own a rickshaw became special target of attack in order to drive home a lesson to all others not to upset the carefully crafted system for hafta collection. Deepak Suri's case demsonstrates this poignantly. He is one of the very few owner puller of a passenger rickshaw. I met him,  per chance outside the MCD yard in 2003 while video recroding the outcome of a typical confiscation drive. He he had come with a bottle of petrol to burn himself to death to protest against the confiscation of his second hand rickshaw which he purchased with his life time saving of Rs 1200. Seeing his desperation I pleaded with MCD employees to release his rickshaw. Since they refused and I realized he might actually char himself to death in sheer desperation, I broke open the lock and released his rickshaw. For that 'offence" MCD employees filed a case against me for "theft of government property." However, they did not dare pursue the case since the entire episode was video recorded.

5.   No more restrictions on the number of rickshaws one can own:  Cycle Rickshaw bye Laws of 1960 also made it a crime to own more than one rickshaw. Only widows and handicapped persons were allowed to own up to 5 rickshaws. The ‘offense" of owning more than one rickshaw was punishable with confiscation and destruction of the vehicle. The special quota of 5 rickshaw licenses for widows and handicapped persons was perforce misused for creating benami rickshaw owners since hardly any widow or handicapped person is likely to survive in this trade given the high risks involved in it. Most rickshaw pullers prefer to hire a rickshaw because as seasonal migrants they stay in the city for limited periods. Most do not have the capital to invest in purchasing a new or a second hand vehicle. They find it far more convenient to pay a daily rent so that they can leave for their villages as and when necessary. 99% of rickshaws in the city are owned by entrepreneurs who won small or big fleets-ranging from 5 to 500 rickshaws. But their very existence was illegal. Therefore, they had to pay the demanded monthly bribes, pay offs for getting benami licenses and suffer losses due to routine confiscation drives which drove many of the small fleet owners out of business. 

The High Court accepted our plea that since no law made it illegal to own multiple cars, trucks, airplanes it is patently illogical and unjust to deny a person the right to own multiple rickshaws and treat him as a criminal, if a man who started his life as a puller or rickshaw mechanic uses his entrepreneurial skills to become a small or big fleet owner. Interestingly, big fleet owners are least happy with the order because they have lost the monopoly of the trade. End to confiscation drives has encouraged numerous pullers based in Delhi to buy their own rickshaw. It has also encouraged new entrants into the trade who feel emboldened to start small fleets of 5-10 rickshaws. Earlier owner pullers and small fleet owners were specially targeted during confiscation drives.

6.   No more groveling and bribing to get a license for plying or owning a rickshaw:  The High Court has endorsed MANUSHI'S submission that the restrictive licensing regime should be replaced with "Registration on Demand". Earlier the municipal corporation could deny a person a license to own and ply a rickshaw without offering any reason whatsoever.  Not surprisingly most rickshaws ended up plying "illegally" and thereby risked confiscation. This enabled vast extortion rackets to flourish at the cost of rickshaw pullers and owners which made them vulnerable to blackmail and human rights abuses.   

7.   Registration on Demand with simple procedures: Since municipal officials will now be required to provide registration to both rickshaw pullers and owners within a specified time frame of two days, it will strike a deathblow to the extortion industry supported by the policy of restrictive licensing followed till now.    

8.   Minimal requirements for registration: The High Court accepted Manushi's plea that requiring residence proof for Delhi, health certificate and other such requirements should not be necessary for those applying for a rickshaw puller license, especially considering most pullers are seasonal migrants without regular  housing. Most of them are too poor to afford even a jhuggi in a slum. Most sleep on pavements or in rickshaw yards. Therefore, denying a poor man the right to earn his living by rickshaw pulling if he failed to provide residence proof amounts to adding insult to injury. The MCD tried to sneak in the old restrictive clauses in the new application forms. But Manushi caught the mischief in time and was able to persuade the High Court to halt the MCD from imposing unrealistic conditions.

9. "Equitable" road space to be provided for plying eco-friendly and cost friendly rickshaws that neither produce air nor noise pollution. As of now, the police has declared 90% of city roads as no entry zones for rickshaws. This does not stop them from plying because there is an active demand for their services even in areas barred to rickshaws. All it means is that the Traffic Policemen can extort money from the puller and also give him danda treatment. This is in clear violation of the Delhi Master Plan which mandates NMV tracks in most parts of the city, including on arterial roads.

10. Adequate space to be earmarked for rickshaw day stands, night parking and repair yards:  As things stand, while huge tracts of land are provided for car parking, there is no legal stand or parking lot for cycle rickshaws.  Rickshaw fleet owners  manage their big or small rickshaw fleets from their makeshift stands, which they have made by occupying wasted pieces of public land and pavements, with very little protection from the elements. These spots are used for servicing and repairing rickshaws as well as parking the vehicles at night. A large proportion of rickshaw pullers sleep at these stands because as seasonal migrants they cannot afford to pay the prevalent high rents for living space even in Delhi's slums. This "unauthorized" use of public space makes the fleet owners additionally vulnerable to extortion. The amount of monthly payments that they have to cough up to the police and municipality depends on the number of rickshaws they own and the amount of public space they occupy. Given the exorbitant land prices in Delhi, it is impractical to expect them to operate their trade from a personally owned piece of land as this would make their trade altogether unviable.

Even after paying bribes, they do not have any security. The threat of eviction from these roadside spaces forever hangs like a sword on their heads.

In 1993, the Rajdhani Cycle Rickshaw Operators Union had filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to demand that the MCD should be directed to allocate rickshaw stands or halting points. The Court directed that 234 stands be allocated for the then sanctioned quota of 20,000 rickshaws in Delhi. But these orders were never implemented. In 1998, the Rickshaw Operators Union filed yet another petition demanding implementation of the Court orders as well as increase in the number of stands to at least 900, since the sanctioned quota for rickshaws was enhanced to 99,000 that year. Even this number is highly inadequate since by MCD's own admission in court,  the number of rickshaws plying in Delhi is believed to be 600, 000 counting those used for carrying passengers as well as those that ferry goods or are used for garbage collection.

Even with a favourable court order in our hand, we are finding that the battle to get authorized rickshaw stands is going to be even tougher than getting NMV tracks even though  this has the potential for enhancing municipal revenues. For example, MCD could charge Rs 100 per rickshaw per month for night parking. This in itself would increase its monthly by 6 crores.

By upholding the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court has stamped its approval on ending the exploitative License Quota Raid Raj for the cycle rickshaw sector. It has the potential to free the hapless pullers and owners of NMVs from the clutches of MCD officials, police and other extortionist mafias that prey on them. 

Confiscation and bribes continued even after the High Court Order, see video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= UYvrk2tFjwk&feature=youtu.be

High Court Appointed Special Task Force

While scrapping the existing cycle rickshaw policy as discriminatory which is violative of the Indian Constitution which promises equality before the law and freedom of occupation as fundamental rights of all citizens, the High Court also ordered the Delhi Government to constitute a Special Task Force to create a new legal regime in order to treat cycle rickshaws and other non-motorized vehicles (NMVs) as an integral part of the transport system. 

On February 27, 2001, Justice Sareen appointed a Committee with the Police Commissioner Traffic as its member, ordering that within four months, these stands should become operational. Only 25 stands were earmarked by the MCD, that too after years of constant pleas by the rickshaw operators. Even out of these 25, most could not be used because they fall in zones declared "No Entry" for rickshaws.

Despite very strong resistance from the Delhi Police and sections within the bureaucracy, Mr Mehta enabled the Task Force to come up with a comprehensive plan of action for reworking the city traffic and making space for NMV vehicles (For a report of the Task Force Click here:)

I was assigned the task of presenting a new law for NMVs. The draft I presented was discussed threadbare and vetted by the legal experts of Delhi government with Rakesh Mehta personally going over each clause in minute detail. Despite steadfast and open resistance by the Delhi Police, Mr. Mehta managed to steer the Task Force towards a consensual acceptance of the new law draft. I am proud to say that this new law provides a good example of extending the agenda of liberalization and economic reforms to the livelihoods of the self employed poor who have thus far been some of the worst victims of the oppressive License Quota Raid Raj. (For the full text of the new draft Bill for NMVs click here).

While the police gladly accepted all those measures recommended by the Task Force that enhanced their powers such as higher penalties for motor vehicles indulging in traffic violations, they did not take kindly to the liberalized regime for cycle rickshaws. Therefore, they persuaded the Lt Governor of Delhi to pressure the Commissioner of Delhi Municipal Corporation to challenge the High Court order in the Supreme Court, even while the police officers did their best to derail the functioning of the Task Force by resisting all measures that would loosen the tyrannical hold of police and municipal officials over the lives and livelihoods of rickshaw pullers.

Lawlessness Continues

However, despite such a strong judgment in favour of rickshaw pullers by the highest court in the land, the battle to get the new law enacted and end the lawless acts of municipal officials and the police is proving to be a prolonged one. In2011, we had to file a contempt petition in the High Court against the MCD and the Delhi Police for systematically thwarting the implementation of the new policy and not putting an end to confiscation drives. That contempt petition is currently being heard in the High court on a monthly basis.

If the new policy is implemented in letter and spirit, it has the potential to make our cities far more citizen friendly by:

The Municipal Commissioner had commissioned three pilot projects to test out the viability of NMV tracks and dedicated footpaths since the police insisted these provisions were impractical given space constraints. The court is currently monitoring the functioning of these pilot projects on a monthly basis because of the callousness with which MCD staff went about making a mockery of these projects. 

We began this work in mid 1990's amidst far greater hostility against rickshaw pullers among officials, judges, and policy makers at large. Senior police officers often referred to rickshaw pullers as vermin who deserved to be exterminated. We were accused of taking India backward at a time when it was becoming a global power. Today, we have won important allies within the adminstration and judiciary. Their numbers are still small but their contribution is significant. For example, if it were not for the interest taken by Justice Ravinder Bhatt and Justice Murlidhar who are currently monitoring the conduct of the police and MCD in the High Court, this issue would have gone in deep freeze. But the battle is likely to be a very long one.

We will be regularly posting reports of this saga for Manushi friends. However, ultimately, I would like to live in a world where no one needs to undertake such back breaking drudgery just to earn a survival wage.