[Reader-list] Re: Nangla/SC Proceedings/Notes/9th May 2006

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Shveta,

Many thanks for the precise and rich note taking from the Supreme Court 
about the destiny of the special leave petition filed on behalf of the 
inhabitants of Nangla Machi.

I find the remarks made by the honourable bench of Justice Ruma Pal and 
Justice Markhande Katju extremely illuminating. They have opened doors 
in my understanding of the Indian Constitution and the rule of law, and 
flooded by being with insight and clarity. I hope that the government 
recognizes the sagacity of the hon'ble bench and awards them with the 
highest civilian honours at the earliest for acting with such alacrity 
to save our city and protect the spirit if not the letter of our 
constitution.

Three things stand out, which as a lay, legally illiterate person, I 
think are quite remarkable in the way they elucidate the working of the 
best intelligences of the judiciary.

1. One, their wisdom on matters of the weather, (that it is "never 
comfortable to live out", that there will always be intense heat, or 
cold, or rainfall in the city). In fact, this is of the utmost 
importance, because given the nature of our city, those who cannot 
afford air conditioners, central heaters, generators and uninterrupted 
power supply should all be asked to leave our fair city. This will 
leave, all of Lutyens Delhi and some pockets straddling the ring road 
intact. The rest of the city in fact should be destroyed. 
Systematically. Something like this was done in 1857, next year is the 
hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that time, and there is no better 
way to commemorate the sacrifices of the Indian rebel martyrs and the 
forward thinking nature of the East India Company's military urban 
planning division, than to repeat that exercise on a grand scale, so as 
to ensure that only those who deserve to live in Delhi should do so.

2. Following from the above, we should do the utmost to ensure that the 
hon'ble benches wise suggestion that, 'If you cannot afford to live in 
Delhi, you need not come here' be implemented at the earliest. This 
suggestion needs to be recognized for the great innovation that it 
represents, implying that the retrograde step of de-linking property 
from citizenship and civic/civil rights, which all democratic movements 
and revolutions (even of a thourouhgly formal nature) had sought to 
advance, has now been finally jettisoned by the Supreme Court of India 
as a foundational legal principle. Before this, we all suffered under 
the terrible delusion that regardless of whether you were rich or poor, 
we all had a human right to make a decent living in the city. Now the 
matter is clear. And the poor must be put away where they belong, so 
that the rest of us can be equal before the law.

Some of us have been anticipating this for some time now, after all, one 
applies for a credit card, or a club membership, and one's chances of 
having one's application accepted do depend on income, ownership of 
property, vehicle (preferably four wheeler) etc. Now, this ruling 
suggests that the same convenient and efficient principle be applied to 
habitation in the city, in fact to citizenship itself. The hundreds of 
years wasted in Democratic efforts, which have only brought slums and 
ruination on all good nations, can now be finally reverse, thanks to 
this epoch making judgement. I am speechless in admiration for the 
hon'ble benches hon'ble sagacity.

3. The hon'ble bench goes on to observe, as per your report, that 'The 
right to shelter did not mean that everyone will have to get shelter'. 
This is yet another stroke of sheer judicial (and judicious) genius. 
Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement, implies that the right 
to life does not mean that everyone has to live, the right to liberty 
and freedom of expression does not mean that everyone has to be at 
liberty to say what they want, and so on. By one stroke, the honourable 
bench has emptied the word 'right' of its inconvenient associations, and 
filled it with the content of the word 'privilege'. This has far 
reaching implications for our polity, which any right thinking person 
will welcome. It means for instance, that a campaign should now be 
undertaken, inspired by the examples set by the Honourable Justices Pal 
& Katju for amending the Indian constitution such that we have what is 
only right and proper, meaning, a body of fundamental restrictions, and 
a few reasonable rights, instead of the other way round. Once this is 
done, judicial efficiency will increase, the back log of cases will 
diminish, and all manner of uncouth, poor, dirty, ganda log can be 
locked away in labour camps to grow organic zuccini, while the true 
inheritors and custodians of the Indian Republic Raj get down to real 
business.

Rise and Shine India ! All hail our glorious Supreme Court.

best

Shuddha




Shveta wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Today, on May 09, 2006, Hon'ble Justice Ruma Pal and Justice Markhande
> Katju of the Supreme Court, set a time of three weeks for the demolition of
> the remainder of Nangla Maanchi. The half an hour hearing was held in Court
> Number 02 (as item number 16) of the Supreme Court, Barakhamba Road, Delhi,
> from 11:00 AM to 11:30 AM.
> 
> The hon'ble bench stated that relocation of all the [remaining] inhabitants
> of Nangla was "not possible" before the demolition. It stated that all it
> could grant Nangla Maanchi was a time of three weeks, before demolition,
> "full stop".
> 
> The hon'ble bench stated that the power house, whose land had been
> 'encroached' by the inhabitants of Nangla had given "some date for
> construction", and that there has to be "balance" - that the land has "uses
> that cannot be denied", and that the more settlements are removed, the
> "more they come". On the question of the timeline for this construction,
> the hon'ble bench stated that whatever the case may be, "occupation of land
> without legal authority cannot be allowed. Even people whose lands have
> legal rights have been relocated" for projects.
> 
> In response to a request on deliberation on the question of cut-off dates
> for eligibility for relocation, the hon'ble bench stated, "from what was a
> few tenemants" it has grown to "thousands", and "each tenemant had a
> family". They have been "growing and growing", that it was becoming
> difficult to "deal with the problem". It also stated, during the court
> proceedings, that if public land is occupied, it will "have to be vacated",
> that the right to shelter did not mean that "everyone be given shelter".
> 
> On the question of Ghewda being without any infrastructure or facilities
> (where the inhabitants of Nangla Maanchi will be temporarily relocated),
> the hon'ble bench stated that in Bawana, a resettlement colony, people had
> sold off their plots of land. On the question of the difficulty of being on
> the streets in this intense heat, the hon'ble bench stated that it is
> "never comfortable to live out", that there will always be intense heat, or
> cold, or rainfall in the city. The hon'ble bench suggested that people need
> not come to Delhi, unless they can afford to live in the city.
> 
> Present at the hearing from Ankur/Cybermohalla:
> Sharmila Bhagat (Ankur)
> Shabana (Ankur)
> Avantika (Ankur)
> Shveta Sarda (Sarai/Cybermohalla)
> 
> Note-taking by Shveta Sarda
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>