Explained In Brief: The Principles And Laws Being Cited By Either Side In Jahangirpuri Demolition Case

What happened?

Yesterday, 21 April, the Supreme Court held a hearing on the Jahangirpuri demolitions matter and listed it again after two weeks. The stay on demolitions continues to be in effect.

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation had carried out demolition in the Jahangirpuri area of New Delhi on Wednesday, 20 April.

The same day, the Supreme Court ordered a stay after some Senior Advocates filed petitions pleading for the same.

How did the Supreme Court order for a stay so soon? What is the law regarding this? Can the judiciary reverse an executive order just like that?

The primary principle which the judiciary relies on in such type of cases is natural justice, that guarantees a right of fair hearing. As per the petitioners, no notice was given to the persons concerned and therefore, they didn’t have a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Additionally, with respect to the status quo orders in cases of demolition, the underlying principle is that if the demolition is not stopped, then some irreparable damage could be caused and if the court on a prima facie view considers that there is some irregularity, a stay is granted in most cases.

But some demolitions were carried out, right?

Yes.

And those all people were given advance notices and a hearing?

According to this report, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that:

-prior notice about the anti-encroachment drive to clear public roads was indeed issued.

-This was the fifth day of a drive which began in January.

-The Delhi High Court itself had ordered the demolition.

Apart from that

The area under consideration, Jahangirpuri, is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Sections 320, 321 and 322 from the Act assume importance in this case.

As per Section 320 of the Act, no person without explicit permission from the Municipal Commissioner, is allowed to erect or set up any wall or any other structure, whether fixed or movable, on a street.

Additionally, under Section 321 no person without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner is allowed to open any channel or drain on any street or put any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder etc., so as to cause encroachment.

Therefore, any encroachment upon the street has been made illegal under the Act.

Now under Section 322 of the Act, the Municipal Commissioner is authorised to remove anything deposited on the streets without prior permission of the authority.

The commission in this regard may ‘without notice’ remove any stall, chair, bench, box etc deposited on a street. Any other articles displayed for public sale can also be removed without notice to the persons concerned.

Therefore, the relevant statute in this case itself empowers the Municipal Commissioner to remove illegal encroachments without any notice.

Bottomline

You are right to wonder if everyone who approaches the judiciary for urgent hearing is accorded the privileges of natural justice.

It was this week itself that Supreme Court in a judgment quoted Oscar Wilde to change the death sentence accorded to a rapist to life sentence, and even the life sentence has been fixed at 20 years of imprisonment.

If the citizens of India think that the distance between the ideal of justice and the practice of it is growing, it is upto the judiciary, before any other institution, to assuage that feeling.