The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere or stay the anti-encroachment drives by the municipal authorities in Shaheen Bagh and Sangham Vihar areas of Delhi on the basis of a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, however, told the municipal authorities to follow the law and issue prior notice before “removing structures”.
Though the court would definitely intervene in case of unauthorised demolitions, it said it cannot be expected to protect illegal encroachments on public roads and pavements from “routine drives”.
Questions CPI(M)‘s locus standi
The court questioned the CPI(M)‘s locus standi in the matter. “Why have you come here? Why have the affected people not come?” Justice Rao asked senior advocate P.S. Surendranath and advocate Subhash Chandran, for the party.
The court made it clear that it would not be reduced to a platform for political parties.
“We will definitely interfere if there is any violation of law, but will not step on anticipations raised by a political party... This is not a platform for political parties,” Justice Rao observed.
The Bench asked the party why it had come straight to the Supreme Court without approaching the Delhi High Court first. “Why can’t you go to the Delhi High Court? How can you say that the High Court is refusing to hear... This is not correct... This is just too much,” Justice Rao addressed Mr. Surendranath.
The court asked whether the party wanted to withdraw its case and approach an “appropriate forum”, namely the High Court, or whether the apex court should dismiss the case on merits.
“We definitely want to protect lives and livelihoods, but not like this,” Justice Rao said, referring to the party’s petition.
The CPI(M) chose to withdraw its petition with liberty to approach the High Court.
The court refused Mr. Surendranath’s plea to halt the drive at least for the next two days.
“Not at your [CPI-M] behest,” Justice Rao shot back.
Similar case
Mr. Surendranath said the court had issued status quo in the Jahangirpuri demolition case. This was a similar case and it could be tagged and heard along with the Jahangirpuri case.
The court clarified that it had stopped the Jahangirpuri demolition because buildings were being demolished.
During the hearing, Mr. Surendranath submitted that the party had not filed the petition out of party interest but out of public interest. He said bulldozers were used to demolish structures of residents, mostly belonging to the economically poor category, without giving them any prior notice. “They were not even given breathing time,” he stated. He further said the hawkers’ union had also approached the court for relief.
“Do hawkers also have structures and buildings? They just have platforms,” Justice Rao asked.
Mr. Surendranath said petty traders were also bearing the brunt of bulldozers.
The court said it cannot intervene in all demolitions. “We have not given any licence to people who have violated the law by encroaching into public space to come here... Anyway, you go to the High Court,” it said.
‘Why don’t you give notice?’
Turning to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the municipal authorities of Delhi, Justice Rao asked, “when you take up such activities, why don’t you go according to the law and give them notice? We are telling you not to remove structures without issuing notice”.
Mr. Mehta said the petition was full of “misrepresentations” intended to create a “political hype” that one particular community is being targeted.
“I would like to inform Your Lordships that these are routine drives to remove encroachments. In such cases, the statute does not require us to give prior notice... The High Court itself had directed us to remove encroachments in Delhi... Such a drive was carried out in central Delhi. When drive starts, hawkers remove themselves...” the Solicitor General submitted.
“Whatever had to be cleared were already cleared before the case was mentioned today... They just want headlines”, he said.
Mr. Surendranath asked, “If only hawkers’ platforms are being removed, why do they have to use bulldozers?”
Advocate Nizam Pasha, for the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, mentioned that it had filed an intervention application in the Jahangirpuri case seeking to stop demolitions across the country.
Earlier in the day, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation filed an affidavit contending that the Jahangirpuri drive was given a communal colour. The corporation claimed it was “blatant falsehood” on the part of the petitioners to claim that houses were demolished. It said it was necessary for the authorities to continue with clearing drives as status quo orders from the court gave encroachers an impetus to re-occupy public areas.
