SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed an NGO to approach the Union government, states and Union Territories with its concerns over demolition of unauthorised structures and the need to protect the right to shelter.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana disposed of a public interest litigation filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance, which had sought a policy framework to balance enforcement of building and planning laws with the rights of affected families.
The petitioner had alleged that authorities in several parts of the country had allowed unauthorised structures and colonies to exist for decades, while providing civic amenities such as water and electricity and collecting municipal taxes from residents. In some cases, the same authorities later initiated demolition proceedings against the structures, the NGO claimed.
The petitioner argued that demolition was an extreme step and should be governed by a policy that takes into account the right to shelter, livelihood and dignity. It also referred to judicial decisions recognising shelter as an element of the right to live with dignity.
During the hearing, the petitioner sought the constitution of a committee under the supervision of the court to examine such cases and formulate an appropriate framework.
The Supreme Court, however, said framing such a policy was primarily within the domain of the executive. The Bench also noted that it had already laid down safeguards governing demolition proceedings.
Justice Bagchi observed that the court could intervene where a state’s policy was arbitrary or failed to provide due process, but could not replace the powers vested in states to enforce the law.
The Bench took note of the petitioner’s contention that the issue existed in several states and Union Territories, including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Delhi. It was also submitted that some unauthorised colonies that had existed for decades were being subjected to demolition without sufficient notice or adequate rehabilitation measures.
The court said it appreciated the concerns raised regarding families who could lose their shelter as a consequence of demolition action. However, it declined to prescribe a uniform policy for the entire country, noting that circumstances could differ from one state to another.
“Fact situation may vary from state to state and may therefore warrant variation in policy,” the Bench observed.
While disposing of the PIL, the court granted the petitioner liberty to forward a copy of its petition to the Union government, all states and Union Territories.
The Bench expressed hope that the competent authorities would consider the issues raised by the NGO, particularly the need to strike a balance between enforcement of planning and building regulations and the consequences of demolition for affected families.
