SC stays action to remove slum dwellers in Sarojini Nagar till next week

Seeking the Centre’s reply on an appeal filed by some of the residents, a bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K M Nataraj, who appeared for the Centre, to “deal with them humanely when you deal with them. As a model government, you can’t say you won’t have a policy to rehabilitate, and simply throw them away. You are dealing with families…”.

Fixing the matter for hearing next week, the bench told the ASG, “don’t precipitate till then” and went on to record his submission that no coercive action will be taken in the meanwhile.

Taking up the matter, Justice Joseph referred to the notice issued to them, and said “Look at your notice. What we have found is (that) you have said, hand it over it is Government of India land. People from all over India, go occupy lands, something they don’t have a choice with. They can’t afford the rates.”

The bench pointed out that the residents had said they had documents from the Election Commission to show that the shanties have been there for some time.

But the ASG replied that having those documents does not give them any right to be on government land.

The bench then wondered if the government could say so in the light of the Delhi High Court judgements dealing with the right to rehabilitation in such instances.

The Centre then urged the court to restrict the interim relief only to the petitioners, and not pass any order covering all the people in the said slums.

“Please say as against the petitioners. They can’t espouse the cause of everyone in the garb of a PIL”, said Nataraj.

But the bench said that when it is examining the actions which are being taken, and whether the judgement of the Delhi High Court is correct or not, it has implication on all people. “We are looking at documents which say they have been there since the nineties. Should it be that only these people be protected and not the others?”, observed Justice Roy.

The ASG said that the situation may vary from one resident to another. But Justice Roy added, “When court is examining the matter, we can’t let the issue be precipitated. If you have difficulty in saying it we will say it. They are asking for a survey. You can’t overlook that.”

The bench told the ASG that he may be right in saying that some of those residing there may have come 40 years back, some 20 years back and some yesterday, and asked whether that was enough to carry out demolition.

The appellants, three of whom are minors, have challenged the Delhi High Court decision declining to interfere with an order refusing the prayer to direct rehabilitation of the slum dwellers numbering about 200 families.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Vikas Singh said, “We can’t just banish them, where do you expect thousands of people to go? Some scheme has to be there.” He referred to the eviction from forest lands in Haryana, and said that even in that matter, the Supreme Court had directed rehabilitation.

Admitting that the people were indeed living in the area, he said, “We will have to go somewhere ultimately. They will have to live somewhere. They can’t be asked to vanish into thin air.”

The plea said the appellants have been residing in the area since the 1980s and have the necessary documents to establish their residence.

It also said a majority of the residents belong to the Below Poverty Line category and “removal of the slums will render” them “homeless thereby violating their human rights as well as the Fundamental Rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of India”.

The appeal also said slums that have come into existence before January 1, 2006, are eligible for rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum Rehabilitation Policy, 2015. Stating that they did not intend to obstruct any development activity, they added that they were only seeking rehabilitation as per state policy.