Supreme Court of India and buldozer justice

 A closer look at the judgment shows that securing a meaningful right to shelter and protection from evictions for all citizens is still not in reach 

Supreme Court of India and buldozer justice 

 

In its judgment

 noting that it violated the 

• basic principles of the rule of law, 
• the separation of powers, 
• and turned the executive into judge, jury, and executioner. 

The Court declared that no person’s home could be demolished merely because they stood accused or even convicted of an offence, and issued a set of guidelines to prevent this kind of state action.

A trail of significant issues

there are a number of issues that it raises

The first is delay by supreme court 

It had begun in the wake of the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens protests, and has multiplied across the country since then. 

Many of these demolitions were challenged in courts including the Supreme Court, but it is only now that the Court chose to act. This raises serious questions about the Court’s delay in addressing such a foundational threat to the rule of law. 

 redress and compensation for past acts

In its judgment, while the Court held that state officials responsible for illegal demolitions would be held personally liable for compensation and redress, it failed to clarify how its judgment would apply to all the demolitions that had taken place so far, and how it would aid the victims of such demolitions, who have been rendered homeless.

two-faced nature of the state on the issue of demolitions

municipal authorities who were actually responsible for the demolitions and had to defend them in Court, would invoke the much more prosaic justification of “illegal” or “irregular” constructions.

demolish the home of someone merely because they have been accused of an offence”? 

one home in a locality was singled out for demolition while surrounding homes were left untouched, that would be an indication of mala fide state action. 

At another point, it discussed how the demolition of an individual’s home affected their (innocent) family as well, and that “collective punishment” was impermissible under Indian law. 

The core of the judgment

Guidelines — which represent the Court’s actual attempt to address the problem

 

Court’s objective was to prevent the state from using demolitions as a political weapon. 

The Court held that before any demolition provide them with at least 15 days to reply. 

stay its hand for at least 15 days

 affected person had a right of appeal, which again required the state to stay its hand for at least 15 days. 

transparency requirements 

Court also went an extra mile and mandated transparency requirements in order to prevent “backdating” of notices (a long-standing problem). 

 in writing, why the extreme step of demolition ?  

municipal officials were required to explain, in writing, why the extreme step of demolition was the only option available, and why, for example, regularisation (through payment of compounding fees), or demolishing only a part of the structure, was not possible. 

In previous cases involving lynching and hate speech, for example, we have seen detailed guidelines. But these have been ineffective because the Court has refrained from following up on and enforcing its own judgment when violations take place. It is to be hoped that this order will not meet the same fate.

A section that is still vulnerable

exclude from its protective ambit, slums 

Court made an exception in its judgment for structures on certain kind of public land (such as abutting a railway track, or a road). 

A look at this exception makes it clear that it would exclude from its protective ambit, slums and informal settlements where the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of society live.

source the hindu