E-Paper
SC rejects plea for national policy for demolition rehab, leaves it to states
The Supreme Court said the petitioners could directly approach the states and union territories since such issues fall within the policy domain
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition seeking a uniform national rehabilitation policy for people displaced by demolition drives against unauthorised constructions, observing that this was a policy matter that falls within the domain of states and union territories,
“It would be difficult and not prudent for this court to lay down a uniform policy framework to be applied across various states,” a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, underlining that such issues essentially fall within the policy domain
The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said the petitioner, non-profit organisation Centre for Law and Good Governance, could directly approach the states and UTs, which would be at liberty to consider the issues raised for formulating or revisiting their existing policies.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Surat Singh, had reasoned that the top court protected the right to shelter as part of the right to dignity and right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution. At the same time, he pointed out that contradictory orders have been passed by the court in this context.
The bench said, “The circumstances may vary from state to state and may, therefore, warrant variations in their respective policy frameworks.”
Singh said Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Delhi have settlement and regularisation policies but such policies do not exist in other states where unauthorised colonies are suddenly ordered to be demolished.
He stated that neither due process was followed and even if notice was served, there was no rehabilitation scheme to ensure the affected persons were provided an alternative site. Demolition was an extreme and irreversible measure, he said, adding that the same ought to be balanced with the right to shelter, livelihood and dignity of citizens.
The bench said, “On one hand there are rank illegal constructions. At the same time, there are also people, largely belonging to economically marginalised sections, who occupy tracts of public land and require alternative accommodation. We cannot fetter the state from taking any suitable policy decision. If the policy is arbitrary, unreasonable or does not accommodate due process, it will be open to judicial review.”
The court also observed that its judgments in the past have laid down “guardrails” beginning with Olga Tellis judgment which recognises that a person in a settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process. In the suo motu case on bulldozer demolitions, the court held that notice before demolition is mandatory, provided it is not an occupation on public land or space.
The petitioner sought the appointment of a court-appointed committee to monitor this issue but the bench was not keen since a court-appointed committee could not substitute the power vested in the state or municipal authority.
“These issues must be examined case by case. They cannot be addressed through a collective policy framed by this court,” the bench reiterated, asserting that it hoped the government would give due consideration to the issues involved.
