SC restrains Delhi civic body from demolition
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday restrained the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (North MCD) from carrying out any demolition drive in riothit Jahangirpuri until its further orders, adding it would take a “serious view” of the apparent disobedience of its directive to immediately stop the bulldozers in the area on Wednesday.
Turning down the municipal authority’s plea not to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against its actions when affected individuals were not before the court, a bench, headed by justice L Nageswara Rao, sought explanations from the North MCD and the Delhi Police for razing around 50 structures in the Jahangirpuri neighbourhood a day ago without issuing any prior notices.
The action came just four days after communal violence roiled the area during a Hamunan Jayanti procession, leading to nine people being injured -eight policemen and a civilian. Opposition political parties and civil society members have described the demolition drive as an act of “revenge”, even as the North MCD has maintained that it was a “routine” drive. Delhi’s three MCDs are under the control of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The bench, which also comprised justice BR Gavai, indicated that it may seek an explanation from the North Delhi mayor (Raja Iqbal Singh) as to why the authority continued tearing down structures for about an hour-and-a-half even after he was reportedly apprised of the court order on maintaining status quo.
At 11am on Tuesday, the apex court ordered status quo (to remain in existing condition) on an urgent plea by a clutch of lawyers, complaining against the ongoing demolition at Jahangirpuri -- although it took another 90 minutes for the local body to stop the demolition drive, citing non-receipt of any order from the apex court.
The bench was informed on Thursday that former MP and CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat was on the spot of demolition in Jahangirpuri, and she brought the court order to the notice of the North Delhi mayor after it was passed. An advocate associated with the case also sent a message to the mayor on WhatsApp apprising him of the status quo order.
“We are also going to take a serious view that demolition continued after the information was given to the mayor. We will take that up later. For the present, we are going to order a status quo until further orders. Let all parties file their replies and pleadings. We will take this up after two weeks... it is in everyone’s interest if this is heard and decided at the earliest,” said the bench while issuing notices on the petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind.
The bench, however, did not entertain another plea in a sepa-
rate petition by Jamiat Ulama-iHind to stop authorities across the country from using bulldozers to carry out demolition against those suspected of involvement in crimes.
“We cannot stay demolition across the country...Demolition is always by bulldozers or by some other machines. We are not going to stay the demolition by a blanket order. There has to be specific instances,” remarked the bench when senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought a generic restraining order.
In recent weeks, the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka have ordered the razing of properties in towns that were roiled by communal violence or criminal activity as part of drives against illegal construction.
Appearing for the orgnisation in the matter relating to the demolition at Jahangirpuri, senior advocate Dushyant Dave called it a “matter of national importance” since one particular community was being targeted and the rule of law was being mocked at in the process of snatching away their right to shelter and the right to earn livelihood.
“You want to start a demolition drive, start from Sainik Farms or Golf Links where I stay. Every house there will have one or the other form of encroachment or irregularity. But why target them? And all of them from one community? These are poor people,” he added.
Opposing Dave, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the North MCD and the Delhi Police, requested the bench to consider not admitting the PIL at all, contending “everyone will jump on the bandwagon” and political interests will take over while those actually affected by the anti-encroachment drive keep away and are not before the court to answer on facts whether they were given notices or not.
“We don’t want structures to be demolished. What will be left after the demolition? Also, we know where to stop. You have been arguing that the petitions are frivolous. Can’t we later take action if the petition is frivolous? As of now, maintain a status quo,” retorted the apex court bench.
The court added that it would want the North MCD to bring on record all details of demolition, including notices issued before the permanent structures were pulled down.
“When the power is given under a law to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. For carrying out demolition under Section 343 of the DMC (Delhi Municipal Corporation) Act, prior notices have to be given and then the demolition can take place between five and fifteen days. There is also a provision for an appeal against such orders,” observed the bench.
The discussion on legal provisions ensued after Mehta said that some temporary structures were removed during the antiencroachment drive in Jahangirpuri on Tuesday and the authorities were not required to issue prior notices.
At this, the bench asked Mehta: “Were only chairs, tables and benches removed yesterday? Was no permanent structure razed? Why did you need bulldozers for removing some tables and chairs?”
Responding, the law officer conceded that bulldozers were called in to remove some permanent structures and parts of buildings, which were already given notices before the demolition was carried out.
However, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for a juice shop owner whose establishment was demolished on Wednesday, said that no such notice was issued to his client. At this, the court said that the North MCD should file the relevant documents, including notices and demolition orders.
On his part, SG Mehta sought to rebut an argument by Dave and Sibal as regards targeting a particular community in the demolition drives. Mehta said that a misleading narrative was sought to be created that properties of only Muslims were being targeted.
“I am sorry to create this distinction based on religion but I have to do this to bring out the correct facts after the arguments of the other side. The narrative started building from Khargone district in after some communal violence broke out on Ram Navami. But the true facts are that in total, 88 affected parties are Hindus and 22 are Muslims. Notices of demolition were issued to them in 2021. Hearings were given to them in 2021. And then demolition orders were passed in 2021 for enforcement in 2022. This has become a pattern.
Instead of individuals coming up, some organisations come to the court and the entire issue is made political,” Mehta lamented.
The demolition drive in Jahangirpuri followed close on the heels of several arrests made by Delhi Police from the locality in connection to the incident. Hindu groups that took out a procession said they were pelted with stones from buildings near a mosque.
On the other hand, Muslims claim men armed with swords and sticks in the procession shouted inflammatory slogans outside the mosque.
On Wednesday morning around 10am, bulldozers roared into the area to conduct an antiencroachment drive to raze illegal structures, sparking a fierce political war and allegations that the municipal administration was bypassing laws and
targeting communities.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, passed the brief order of status quo at around 11am following an urgent plea by a bunch of lawyers, led by Dave who complained against what they called an “unconstitutional and unauthorised demolition”.