The 400-Metre Market Stretch
A hill-town municipal council must decide on a 400-metre market stretch where 120 hawkers have traded for over twenty years. Three hundred residents have petitioned for a pedestrian-only zone, citing two pedestrian accidents in eight months, one fatal, and daily congestion. The hawkers' union says 60 families depend entirely on these stalls and that both accidents involved speeding two-wheelers, not stalls. The council has ₹18 lakh for the year. One proposal: pedestrian-only from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., with the rest of the day unchanged. A second: move all hawkers to a plot three kilometres away with forty stalls. A third: no change, more police. The councillor for the ward, who must speak first in the debate, asks for an analysis before the vote on Thursday.
1. Apply Mill's harm principle to the market. Does the market harm? Distinguish harm from offence, and identify the harm on the hawkers' side.
Read the worked answer
Harm principle: interference with liberty is justified only to prevent harm to others, not to enforce a preferred way of life or to remove mere offence.
Is congestion harm? Not by itself. Crowds, noise and slow movement are inconveniences; residents who chose a home near a twenty-year-old market are offended and inconvenienced, not harmed, and Mill would not coerce 120 livelihoods for that.
Is the accident harm? Yes, unambiguously - one death and one injury are the strongest considerations on the table. But the union's point matters to the remedy: the accidents involved speeding two-wheelers. If the causal chain runs through vehicle speed rather than stall width, then removing stalls is an unrelated remedy. Mill's principle licenses the minimum interference that prevents the harm: barriers, speed limits, timed vehicle bans, enforcement at the pinch points.
Harm on the other side: the relocation proposal would destroy the livelihood of 60 families and strand 80 hawkers with no stall at all. Livelihood loss is a clear harm, not an offence or a preference, and it falls on people who did nothing wrong.
Conclusion: the harm principle rules out the full clear-out as disproportionate, and rules out 'no change' as a failure to address the one genuine harm - the speeding vehicles.
2. Apply Rawls' difference principle and distinguish negative from positive liberty in the hawkers' claim.
Read the worked answer
Difference principle: social and economic inequalities are just only if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Compare the options from behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you will be a resident, a hawker or a two-wheeler rider.
- Clear-out with 40 stalls at 3 km: 80 hawkers lose their place; the least advantaged are made worse off. Fails.
- No change: the least advantaged include the next accident victim; a known, fixable risk is left in place. Fails on the harm side, though it leaves livelihoods intact.
- Timed pedestrian zone plus traffic calming: traders keep their pitches and gain three hours of foot traffic; pedestrians gain safety at the peak hours. On the evidence available, this is the only option that improves the position of both groups at the bottom. It comes closest to satisfying the principle.
Negative liberty - freedom from interference - is what the hawkers invoke: no one should remove them from a pitch they have occupied for twenty years without consent. Positive liberty - effective capacity to act - is what the relocation proposal destroys: a stall 3 km away with no transport and only 40 places is a formal offer that most cannot actually use. A right to trade that cannot be exercised is not a liberty.
The hawkers' claim is therefore strongest when stated both ways: non-removal and the practical means to keep trading.
3. Recommend a resolution and explain why a majority vote alone cannot settle the question.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: adopt the timed pedestrian zone (6–9 p.m.), spending the ₹18 lakh on traffic calming at the two accident points, a speed limit with enforcement, two lit crossing points, and a phased extension of the market plot so that any relocation carries at least 120 stalls and transport. Set a review after six months with the accident count, footfall and hawker earnings published.
Why not the majority vote: 300 petitioners against 120 hawkers would carry any vote, but numbers cannot decide a question of rights. If the majority's convenience could override the minority's livelihood, no minority would ever be safe - the same principle that protects the 120 today protects the 300 tomorrow. The vote is a legitimate procedure for choosing among just options; it cannot make an unjust option just.
What makes this resolution just: it addresses the actual harm (vehicle speed) rather than a scapegoat; it imposes no loss on those least able to bear it; it keeps a public decision open to evidence through review; and it treats the hawkers as parties with a claim, not as an inconvenience to be cleared. The council should record the reasons in the minutes, so that the next council is answerable to them.