Indian Society Part 6: Urban Informality — Slums, Hawkers and Housing Schemes, Exam-Ready Notes

Category: Civil Exams · Series: Indian Society (GS Paper 1) · Read time: ~9 minutes

Urban India is where society questions get spatial: slum statistics, street-vendor rights, rental housing and the flagship schemes. The exam material is a definitional set (what legally counts as a slum, who counts as a street vendor) plus a scheme stack and the current debates (rental housing, SMILE-type surveys, slum-free city missions).

Table of Contents

1. The Urbanisation Card
2. Slums: Definition and Data
3. Street Vendors: The Act and the Ecosystem
4. Housing the Poor: The Scheme Stack
5. Informality and the Right to the City
6. How Exams Probe This Topic
7. Quick Revision: One-Glance Facts

1. The Urbanisation Card

• The numbers. India ~34-35% urban (2011: 31.1%; current estimates ~35-36%) — projected ~40% by 2030 and ~50%+ by 2050 (the “urban millennium” framing); India’s urban population contributes ~60%+ of GDP (the economic-urbanisation mismatch: a third of people, three-fifths of output).
• The definitional trap. Census “urban” = statutory towns + census towns (5,000+ population, 75% male non-farm work, density 400/sq km — the census-town criterion is a prelims item); the rurban/census-town phenomenon — urbanisation without urban status — the missing-urban-data problem.
• The governance frame. The 74th Amendment (1992) — municipalities as the third tier; the 2025 “one nation, one municipal legislation”-type debates and city-mayor reform discussions (directly elected mayors, municipal finance — the property-tax and municipal-bonds agenda).

2. Slums: Definition and Data

• The definition. Census slum = compact area, at least 300 population or 60-70 households, with at least one of: poorly built congested tenements, inadequate infrastructure, poor sanitation and drinking water, unhygienic conditions — the five-feature legal definition to reproduce.
• The data. Census 2011: ~6.5 crore slum dwellers (17.4% of urban households) across ~1.07 lakh+ notified/non-notified slums (the numbers age — the 2021 census never happened; use 2011 with that caveat; SECC-2013- and NFHS-based urban-deprivation estimates supplement).
• The state ladder. Maharashtra (Mumbai) leads slum population, then AP/Telangana, MP, West Bengal, TN — the metropolis concentration; Dharavi as the global archetype of slum-as-workspace (annual turnover ~$1 bn, the leather-garments economy — the informal-economy paradox).
• The rights line. Slum dwellers’ claims: tenure security vs eviction; the judicial frame — Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) — the pavement-dwellers case: right to livelihood under Article 21; evictions require fair hearing and alternative sites — the leading citation for every housing-rights answer.

3. Street Vendors: The Act and the Ecosystem

• The Act. Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 — the rights card: Town Vending Committees (TVCs) with 40% vendor membership (and women vendors’ representation), survey-based registration and certificates of vending, designated vending zones and time-restricted zones, relocation only as last resort with notice and alternative, grievance redress. Model Rules 2015/2017 for implementation.
• The context numbers. ~1-2 crore street vendors estimated (the PM SVANidhi universe); vendors as the last-mile retail of urban India — footpath economy estimates of lakh-crore annual trade.
• The scheme. PM SVANidhi (2020) — micro-credit for vendors: ₹10,000 → ₹20,000 → ₹50,000 progressive collateral-free loans, digital-transaction cashbacks, and now the PM SVANidhi Plus extension with UPI-linked credit history — the pandemic-born scheme that became the template for urban micro-finance.
• The chronic problems. Municipal high-handedness and drive-era evictions (despite the Act), TVCs under-functional in many cities, the non-surveyed vendor (the certificate gap), and vending zones squeezed by urban-renewal projects.

4. Housing the Poor: The Scheme Stack

• PM Awas Yojana — Urban (2015; PMAY-U 2.0 “Housing for All” 2024-25 extension) — four verticals: in-situ slum redevelopment (land-as-resource), credit-linked subsidy (CLSS), affordable housing in partnership (AHP), beneficiary-led construction (BLC); the 2.0 (2024) continuation: central assistance for 1 crore more houses over five years with ~~2.2 lakh crore outlay; rural twin = PMAY-G (gramin).
• Affordable rental housing. ARHC (Affordable Rental Housing Complexes, 2020) — the pandemic-migrant response (converting government-funded vacant houses into rentals); the 2024 rental-policy push and Model Tenancy Act 2021 — the vacancy-locked-housing logic (11 million+ vacant urban houses per 2011 — the puzzle mains answers cite).
• The missions. AMRUT (water/sewer, 2015; AMRUT 2.0), Smart Cities Mission (100 cities; 2015), SBM-U (open-defecation-free-plus, 2.0), DAY-NULM (deendayal antyodaya — urban livelihoods: SHUs, shelters for the urban homeless — the “rain basera” component), JJM urban — the family to name as a set.
• The critique. Ownership-bias (ownership houses vs the rental need of migrants), peripheral relocation (housing built far from livelihoods — the “houses without the city”), slow in-situ verticals, and the land-finance model debates (Dharavi redevelopment-type PPPs — current with the 2024-25 Adani-sector project controversy).

5. Informality and the Right to the City

• The informal economy. ~90% of India’s workers informal (PLFS; formalisation post-GST/EPFO debates); urban informality = informal work + informal housing + informal services (water, power hookups) — the composite that “subsidises” formal urban life (cheap labour, cheap services).
• The concept. Right to the city (Henri Lefebvre) — the claim of all residents, not just property owners, to urban space, services and participation; in India operationalised as: tenure security, universal services, participatory planning (the 74th Amendment’s wards committees).
• The mains tension. World-class-city aesthetics (evictions, vending-free footpaths) vs inclusive-city rights (the Act’s protections) — frame every slum/hawker question through this tension, with Olga Tellis and the 2014 Act as the two anchors.

6. How Exams Probe This Topic

• Prelims: slum’s census definition features; census-town criteria; the 2014 Act’s TVC composition (40% vendors); PM SVANidhi’s loan ladder; PMAY-U verticals; AMRUT/SBM-U coverage; Olga Tellis‘ Article 21 holding.
• Mains: “Slums are solutions, not just problems — examine urban informal housing’s economics”; “The Street Vendors Act is well-designed and weakly implemented — discuss”; “Migrant-targeted rental housing must complement ownership schemes — analyse with ARHC/Model Tenancy Act.”
• Essay/interview: the right to the city; Dharavi-type redevelopment debates; municipal finance — prepare one number-laden position per theme.

7. Quick Revision: One-Glance Facts

• Urban. ~35% urban; census-town criteria; 74th Amendment frame.
• Slums. Census definition (300 pop/60-70 HH + squalor features); 6.5 crore (2011), 17.4% of urban households; Maharashtra leads; Olga Tellis 1985 (Art 21 livelihood).
• Vendors. Act 2014 — TVCs (40% vendors), surveys, zones; PM SVANidhi ₹10k→₹20k→₹50k.
• Housing. PMAY-U four verticals; PMAY-U 2.0 (1 crore more houses); ARHC 2020; Model Tenancy Act 2021; 11 million vacant houses paradox.
• Family. AMRUT 2.0, Smart Cities, SBM-U 2.0, DAY-NULM; ~90% informal work.

Conclusion. Urban informality questions are won by pairing the legal guarantees (the 2014 Act, Olga Tellis, PMAY-U’s in-situ vertical) with the implementation gaps and the right-to-the-city framing. Memorise the definitions verbatim — slum, street vendor, census town — keep the 2011-data caveat in every number, and this cluster’s prelims and mains both fall neatly.