INTRODUCTION
In India, the recognition of the human right to adequate housing is deeply rooted within the constitution and legal framework. The Supreme Court of India has consistently affirmed the close relationship between the right to housing[1] and the right to life. It has emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity, encompassing essential aspects like nutrition, clothing, shelter, and freedom of expression.[2] The court has highlighted that shelter is not just a protective covering but a nurturing home that fosters physical, intellectual, and spiritual growth. [3]The right to adequate housing includes access to suitable living space, secure structures, clean surroundings, and essential amenities. The court has also acknowledged the right to property as part of the broader spectrum of human rights, alongside health, livelihood, and employment. [4]
As the Supreme Court champions the right to adequate housing, a striking disparity emerges between the government’s proclaimed rehabilitation efforts and the harsh realities faced by those subjected to demolitions and forced evictions, as underscored by the recent observations of the Delhi High Court.[5]
DEMOLITIONS AND EVICTIONS IN INDIA
Between January 1, 2022,[6] and July 15, 2022, a staggering 62,330 houses were demolished by governments at various levels, impacting over 331,560 persons. Disturbingly, approximately 15 million people in India currently live under constant threat of eviction and displacement, as reported by the Housing and Land Rights Network. Shockingly, there are no official figures available for the number of people facing forced evictions or residing in unauthorized colonies. These demolitions are primarily driven by several factors: slum clearance and anti-encroachment initiatives aimed at city beautification, infrastructure development projects such as road widening and bridge construction, so-called ‘smart city’ initiatives, environmental endeavours related to forest protection and wildlife conservation, disaster management actions, as well as military operations and conflicts.
Amidst demolitions, a pattern emerges a selective application of anti-encroachment laws that aligns with government interests. Land turns “illegal” overnight, and government guidelines and precedents set by the courts are blatantly ignored, exacerbating the injustice. For instance last year in April, Jahangirpuri [7]witnessed communal violence as an unauthorized procession clashed with Muslims near a mosque. Following the incident, demolitions were initiated without providing necessary notices, disregarding the legal safeguards in place. The demolition process violated key provisions such as notice periods and the opportunity to present a defence, as mandated by the Public Premises Act and Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.[8] The precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Sudama Singh, which emphasized the importance of proper eviction procedures and rehabilitation plans, was blatantly disregarded too. [9]
In the realm of demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, a similar narrative unfolded. What began with the ruthless bulldozing of a notorious gangster’s house, accused of heinous crimes.[10] Under the leadership of Chief Minister Adityanath, bulldozers have become instruments of retribution, demolishing the homes of mere rioting suspects, without awaiting a conviction. Similarly, in the aftermath of violence following the Prophet remarks row, the Uttar Pradesh government carried out demolitions.[11] The Supreme Court reminded the UP government of the need to adhere to the law and avoid retaliation,[12] the court, however, denied a stay on demolitions.
The judiciary’s approach to demolitions in recent times has primarily focused on procedural aspects rather than addressing the underlying substantive issues. The broader concerns of the court do not surround the selective application of law and the true motives behind demolitions often remain unaddressed by the courts. The selective nature of these demolitions raises concerns about the inconsistent enforcement of building laws and planning permissions, which, if uniformly implemented, would require a significant number of properties in Indian towns and cities to be partially or fully demolished.
Recently, the Delhi High Court while denying a stay on the demolition of a jhuggi hope based on the grounds that were not part of the notified jhuggi cluster under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy opined:
“Although the Government of Delhi has sought to make efforts to rehabilitate jhuggi dwellers on paper, the ground reality is far from desirable. Due to this, this Court finds it necessary to reiterate that the right to housing is a part and parcel of the right to livelihood, health, food, clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities, such facilities must be provided to individuals who will be relocated to Geeta Colony, Dwarka.” [13]
Similarly, the Bombay High Court,[14] in a case involving alleged encroachments by Western Railways, expressed concerns about human displacement and criticized the use of bulldozers as a solution by highlighting problems such as lack of rehabilitation scrutiny, improper eviction notices, in a later order, it allowed the government to continue with the demolitions, albeit with the due procedure established by law.[15] Such decisions of the courts reflect a concerning pattern, the court acknowledges the flaws in the government’s approach but still fails to intervene and protect the rights of those being evicted.
Furthermore, the response of the courts to the recent demolitions in Delhi has been particularly disheartening, revealing a distressing level of insensitivity towards the affected communities.
COURTS’ STANCE ON RECENT DEMOLITIONS
In the lead-up to the G20 summit, Delhi has witnessed a swift and extensive demolition drive, targeting areas designated for G20 events under the guise of “beautification.”
In Mehrauli (Delhi), where the cultural walk is scheduled, 700 eviction notices were served, resulting in the demolition of 25 houses.[16] The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking relief from the demolition order, citing that the land in question falls within the Mehrauli Archaeological Park, owned by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). [17]Similarly, in Tughlakabad, Delhi, approximately 1,500 eviction notices were issued, leading to the demolition of around 3,000 houses. Referring to a Supreme Court order from February 14, 2016, the Delhi High Court bench ordered that encroachments were to be removed.[18]
Moreover, the Public Works Department (PWD) and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) have been ordered to demolish slums located near Pragati Maidan which is the venue for the G20 Summit, and relocate the residents to nearby shelter homes. Despite opposition from some government officials, the plan to remove these slums is being pursued in the name of hosting foreign delegates and dignitaries. The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the proposed demolitions near Pragati Maidan, granting a month for occupants to vacate the premises. [19]
The government’s demolitions have extended beyond illegal structures to include shelters that were constructed by the government itself in Geeta Ghat near Yamuna River.[20] This action reveals the arbitrary and unjust nature of the demolitions, as even the very shelters meant to provide temporary housing have been torn down, once again leaving the vulnerable without a place to seek refuge.
The government’s focus on appearances and the prioritization of hosting the G20 Summit over the well-being and rights of marginalized communities. The current situation for people in shelter homes and slums resembles what was experienced during the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010. Forced evictions and demolitions have taken place in Delhi, driven by reasons such as stadium construction, parking lot development, road widening, city beautification, and security concerns. [21]These actions have resulted in the displacement of at least 250,000 people since 2004, violating international instruments like the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement. [22]
CONCLUSION
Despite the emphasis on procedural aspects in recent court judgments regarding demolitions, there have been notable instances where the courts have gone beyond the due procedure established by law and taken a more comprehensive stance. The Kerala High Court, in a case challenging the order setting aside compensation for demolition determined by an arbitrator, criticized the unnecessary burdening of the courts by the National Highways Authority of India, causing delays in the disbursement of interest and compensation.[23] Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court while dealing with a case about the demolition of a school expressed shock at the lackadaisical attitude of the State towards fulfilling its duty to provide education, emphasizing the fundamental requirement of education for a successful democratic system and denouncing the negligence that renders the right to education meaningless.[24] These cases serve as a testament to the courts’ ability to tackle broader issues that extend beyond procedural matters. Nevertheless, the court’s reluctance to grant stays on demolitions places affected individuals in a vulnerable position, underscoring the urgent need for stronger safeguards. In the face of an arbitrary government, the courts assume a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of the people. Courts stand as the last line of defence, interposing their authority between the vulnerable and the relentless onslaught of bulldozers, ensuring that justice prevails even in the face of adversity. Amidst the ongoing struggle, it becomes imperative to strike a delicate balance between justice, procedural integrity, and the harsh realities faced by those affected by demolitions. Only through unwavering vigilance and proactive judicial interventions can the courts truly emerge as beacons of hope for those impacted by arbitrary demolitions.
Author(s) Name: – Myra Khanna (Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai )
References:
[1] Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors. (1986) AIR 180 (SC).
[2] Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator & anr. (1981) AIR 746 (SC)
[3] Chameli Singh And Others Etc. vs State Of U.P. And Another (1995) AIR 1996 (SC).
[4] Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder Vs M.I.D.C. and Ors (2012) AIR 2013 (SC).
[5] ‘ground reality far from desirable’: HC on Delhi Government efforts to rehabilitate Jhuggi Dwellers (2023) The Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/ground-reality-desirable-hc-delhi-government-efforts-rehabilitate-jhuggi-dwellers-8504509/ (Accessed: 22 August 2023).
[6] Press release – HLRN. Available at: https://www.hlrn.org.in/documents/PR__Forced_Evictions_2021.pdf (Accessed: 22 August 2023).
[7] Srivastava, N. (2022) Jahangirpuri: How Religious Violence Razed Homes and Dreams, BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61172227 (Accessed: 22 August 2023).
[8] Bhatia, G. (2022) Guest post: The illegality of the jahangirpuri demolitions, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy. Available at: https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2022/04/28/guest-post-the-illegality-of-the-jahangirpuri-demolitions/ (Accessed: 22 August 2023).
[9] Sudama Singh & Others vs Government Of Delhi & Anr. (2010) AIR 7317 (Delhi HC).
[10] Kanpur Gangster Vikas Dubey’s house demolished (2020a) Hindustan Times. Available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kanpur-gangster-s-house-demolished/story-ruwgIfK6QoPl6AjRAkhnNN.html (Accessed: 20 August 2023).
[11] Rajagopal, K. (2022) Demolitions were routine, lawful: U.P. Govt tells Supreme Court, The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/demolitions-were-routine-lawful-up-govt-tells-supreme-court-bulldozers-prophet-remarks/article65551956.ece (Accessed: 20 August 2023).
[12] Sinha, B. (2022) ‘demolitions can’t be retaliatory’ – SC issues notice to up Govt, but no stay on Bulldozer drives, ThePrint. Available at: https://theprint.in/judiciary/demolitions-cant-be-retaliatory-sc-issues-notice-to-up-govt-but-no-stay-on-bulldozer-drives/998907/ (Accessed: 20 August 2023).
[13] Supra Note 5.
[14] In the High Court of judicature at bombay ordinary original … – livelaw. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/f2560000357220232-1-458847.pdf (Accessed: 21 August 2023).
[15] Petitioner tried to pull a fast one on court: Bombay HC allows BMC to proceed against Society for encroachment on Railway Property (no date) LawBeat. Available at: https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/petitioner-tried-pull-fast-one-court-bombay-hc-allows-bmc-proceed-against-society (Accessed: 19 August 2023).
[16] Singh, S.R. (2023) After DDA’s eviction notice, Mehrauli JJ Dwellers in the line of fire, The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/after-ddas-eviction-notice-mehrauli-jj-dwellers-in-the-line-of-fire/article66351066.ece (Accessed: 19 August 2023).
[17] Prasad, M. (2023) Mehrauli demolition: Delhi High Court refuses to entertain plea till fresh demarcation, The Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/mehrauli-demolition-delhi-high-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-till-fresh-demarcation-8457409/ (Accessed: 17 August 2023).
[18] Prasad, M. (2023a) Mehrauli demolition: Delhi High Court refuses to entertain plea till fresh demarcation, The Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/mehrauli-demolition-delhi-high-court-refuses-to-entertain-plea-till-fresh-demarcation-8457409/ (Accessed: 19 August 2023).
[19] Mani, G. (2023) Near Delhi’s Pragati Maidan, venue for G20, slum gets eviction notice, The Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/near-delhis-pragati-maidan-venue-for-g20-slum-gets-eviction-notice-8416337/ (Accessed: 21 August 2023).
[20] Harigovind, A. (2023a) Eight shelters are demolished, leaving many without a roof in Yamuna floodplains, The Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/eight-shelters-are-demolished-leaving-many-without-a-roof-in-yamuna-floodplains-8499828/ (Accessed: 20 August 2023).
[21] Planned fact- mission 14report – hlrn.org. Available at: https://hlrn.org/img/publications/planned_dispossession.pdf (Accessed: 21 August 2023).
[22] United Nations basic principles and guidelines on development … – HLRN. Available at: https://www.hlrn.org.in/documents/Handbook_UN_Guidelines.pdf (Accessed: 21 August 2023).
[23] Benny, N. (2023) Solatium & Interest as per land acquisition act payable for acquisitions made under National Highways Act: Kerala High Court reiterates, Live Law. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-national-highways-act-land-acquisition-act-solatium-section-23-nhai-230967 (Accessed: 21 August 2023).
[24] Sucheta et al. (2023) State cannot reduce right to education to mere rope of sand: Karnataka HC, SCC Blog. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/20/karnataka-high-court-reprimands-s-tate-authorities-delayed-reconstruction-village-school-demolished-widen-mysore-highway-legal-news-updates/ (Accessed: 21 August 2023).
