'Why the Tearing Hurry?' SC to Hear Plea Against Demolition in Nizamuddin Basti

"Hundreds of children, women, and men are left on the streets in chilly winter," read a petition filed in the SC.

Image used for representational purposes only. 

(Photo: PTI)

A blanket of thick smog enveloped New Delhi this winter, as the mercury dipped to below-normal temperatures. In November, hundreds of people — many of them rickshaw pullers, ‘housemaids’, fruit-sellers, and daily-wage labourers— still watched their homes crumble to dust.

The demolition drive in Delhi’s Nizamuddin area was carried out by the Land and Development Office (L&DO), an attached office of the Ministry of Urban Development. Incidentally, it took place at a time when all such demolition activity was banned, owing to the startling levels of pollution that had subsumed the national capital. In this case, however, the Commission on Air Quality Management (CAQM) did not seemingly mind making an exception.

“What is the tearing hurry in demolishing listed and surveyed Jhuggi Jhopris?” a petition filed in the Supreme Court asks.

The Indian Express, in a report, quoted unnamed sources in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) as saying that the “main objective behind this action is to dissuade property dealers and to create awareness among the general public against buying such plots.”

But as per the petition:

“As a consequence of the L&DO’s (over)speedy action, hundreds of children, women and men are left on the streets in chilly winter – contrary to the right to dignity and shelter…”

This plea, challenging the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of their plea against the exemption granted by CAQM, has been listed for hearing on Friday, 2 February. The apex court will hear it along with a petition challenging another Delhi High Court order upholding its older judgment (from 2019) which had paved the way for this razing of homes.

PLEA 1: AGAINST CAQM’S EXEMPTION

“The Petitioner and his family today are homeless and have no roof over their head, with no water, toilet, and other facilities, and is a victim of thoughtless and arbitrary action by L&DO, taken under the garb of compliance with judicial orders.”

The petition, filed by Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman on behalf of a man who lost his home in the demolition drive, raises questions pertaining to the urgency with which the CAQM granted the exemption to the L&DO in order for it to carry out the demolitions. It notes:

1. In compliance with a Delhi High Court order from 2019 (more of that later), on 17 November 2023, the L&DO fixed the demolition activity for 21 November. On 18 November, it posted a notice to that effect.

2. This, even though, on 2 November, the CAQM had decided to implement stage III of its Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP III) in Delhi NCR, owing to the high levels of pollution. In doing so, it enforced (as per the GRAP III order) a “strict ban on construction and demolition activities in the entire NCR.” 

3. The GRAP III order listed out some exceptions, of course. But these included projects for railway services, national security, hospitals and healthcare, etc. The plea notes that the exemptions pertained to “very narrow classes of projects” and that there was no provision for individual exemption. It adds that “in any event, any such exemptions are to be constructed…(in association with) the said categories.”

4. On 21 November, the Delhi High Court had ordered that the demolitions must be carried out subject to GRAP III restrictions. Within “just a matter of a couple of hours” however, the petition argues, the CAQM obliged with the exemption.

5.  It argues that all of this happened even though there is no proposed project on the land where the demolitions were slated.

6. This demolition, the petition adds,  was carried out within 4 days from notice (including two non-working days). This, it says, “ was done in the teeth of” the guidelines laid down in Ajay Maken vs Union of India which mandates adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled eviction and “bars rendering people homeless overnight.”

The counsel for the petitioners has also said that (as per an RTI response) the L&DO had applied for an exemption from GRAP III restrictions on 20 November. The CAQM granted exemption to the L&DO on the same day.

Thus, the petition concludes that there was no public interest involved in the demolition, and the CAQM had no power to exempt individuals from the construction and demolition ban. It seeks, among other things:

• A stay on further action in the area

• Direction to the L&DO to produce videographed footage of the demolition drive

• Direction to the government to rehabilitate and compensate the petitioner, as well as others who suffered the same fate

PLEA 2: CHALLENGE TO DELHI HC’S 2019 ORDER

“The Petitioners herein are impoverished persons residing in a jhuggi Jhopri Basti (JJ Basti), which has been in existence since the 1980s. Petitioner No.1 is an auto-rickshaw driver, and other petitioners include housemaids, house janitors, rag pickers, garbage collectors, and other such persons whose existence is necessary for the functioning of the society…”

This petition argues against a Delhi High Court order from 2019 which it says had “erroneously disregarded the stipulations outlined in the statutory Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation Policy of 2015 (effective from 2017), established in compliance with court directives and under the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act of 2010.” It also challenges the High Court’s dismissal of their review petition against the 2019 order.

As per the petition:

1. The 2015 policy provides for protection from removal as well as rehabilitation to those jhuggi-jhopri clusters which came up before 2006. It also provides the same to those individuals who built their jhuggis in these clusters before 2015.

2. However, the Delhi High Court relied on a satellite image (Google Earth) as well as the absence of an electricity bill predating 2006 to conclude that the petitioners were ineligible for rehabilitation after the demolition of their homes

3. On the question of satellite image:

– The petition notes that satellite images carry their own limitations

– It also argues that this is not a methodology stipulated for this purpose either in the 2015 Policy or the DUSIB Act.

– “The image submitted to the High Court was markedly pixelated and of inferior quality, making it impractical to accurately determine their presence by counting the rooftops of jhuggis,” it adds. Despite that, it says, the satellite image did reflect the existence of a jhuggi jhopri basti on the location. “Thus, it was a case of error apparent on record which was shown to the Hon'ble High Court.

– In another case (In Re: Noida Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, 2011) the Supreme Court refused to consider satellite images as conclusive evidence of ground position

4. On the question of electricity bills

— The High Court, as per the petition, relied on the absence of an electricity bill in order to arrive at its conclusion. This is despite the petitioners’ assertion that the electricity connections in the jhuggi were not provided before 2008

— The court also “discredited” the ration cards, voter ID cards, driving licenses, caste certificates, school certificates, birth and death certificates produced by the petitioners

— The 2015 policy, however, gives a list of alternative documents that can be produced by the dweller, which includes electricity bills but is not limited to them. Other documents on the list are ration cards, caste certificates, government-issued ID cards, school IDs with photographs, etc

5. The Jhuggi-Jhopri basti in question was also a “notified” basti, which is protected under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) policy

6. The petition also argues, among other things, that the Delhi High Court has in a catena of previous judgments granted protection to jhuggi clusters belonging to the same basti as this cluster

Thus, it seeks, among other things:

• An interim stay on any activity/construction/eviction/demolition on the land in question



• Direction to DUSIB to provide adequate housing to those who have lost their homes, in accordance with the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy

• Rehabilitation for the petitioners and other similarly situated persons

More Context

The Indian Express, in its report, quoted a former dweller of the basti as saying that the razing took place despite the documentation provided by them to the authorities. Some also said that they had no time to even save their belongings.

Another reportedly added: “My husband’s health is deteriorating, there is no bed to sleep on, no utensils to cook or eat in… Shelters are refusing to accommodate us…”.

In the Ajay Maken case, referenced above, the Delhi High Court had held that the right to housing is “not limited to a bare shelter over one’s head.”

“It includes the other rights to life viz., the right to livelihood, right to health, right to education and right to food, including right to clean drinking water, sewerage facilities and transport facilities.”

But what is a jhuggi-dweller to do, when even his bare shelter comes crashing down? Especially in Delhi’s biting winter. It remains on the apex court, as it begins hearing this matter, to assess and answer.

(Mekhala Saran is studying Global Media and Digital Communications at SOAS, University of London. She was formerly The Quint's Principal Correspondent - Legal. Find her on X @mekhala_saran.