[Reader-list] Re: [Urbanstudy] Nangla Maachi: Court Proceedings.Note.9th May 2006

[Aditi thorat]

Thank you all for an enriching discussion on this very significant issue.
Without disrespect to anyone, I think it might be useful to examine
the successes/challenges of "rights" based movements in the struggle for
shelter for the urban poor. Using an example from the 1980s, where there
were similar widespread demolitions of slum/pavement dwellers in Mumbai,
(see Anand Patwardhan's powerful film "Hamara Shaher"), to quote Dunu Roy, a
"PIL was filed by a journalist to protect the rights of pavement dwellers.
In 1986, the court gave a landmark judgement in what came to be known as the
Olga Tellis case, holding that the Right to Life included the Right to
Livelihood and, hence, the pavement dwellers could not be arbitrarily
evicted as their livelihood was dependent on where they lived." (Ref:
http://www.india-seminar.com/2004/533/533%20dunu%20roy.htm)

However, on the ground, legal thinkers, policy makers, bureaucrats often
interpreted this case as the narrow "right of pavement dwellers to live on
pavements" , and this position actually became a convenient way for city
officials to avoid discussion of sustainable resettlement of pavement
dwellers, even where clearly families wanted to move, as they were living in
highly precarious conditions, with their children having to use busy roads
as their playgrounds and bathrooms.

I think this example is useful to illustrate some of the challenges that
rights-based activism faces. It would be good to have some more discussion
on this.

Best,
Aditi

On 5/15/06, AZplan <plan at architexturez.net> wrote:
>
> A few affected-person thoughts on the Ankur/Sarai/CM account of
> proceedings and comments in subsequent posts:
>
> Both cases from Nangla Maanchi this year (the one in High Court in January
> and the one decided by Supreme Court on 9 May) were filed against advice
> of others. They sought clemency with reliance on constitutional provisions
> (in my view, there was no scope for referring to statutory rights from
> Nangla Maanchi). The Supreme Court case (with the one of Sajha Manch,
> decided 3 days later by a 4 judge bench) all but settles, ex-parte, the
> cases of all others. Similar happened in Pushta 2004 (in 2006, in the same
> week we have also been presented with a Delhi Laws (Special Provisions)
> Bill).
>
> I think the arrogance that marks undignified remarks of the courts is
> matched by the arrogance of beggarly petitions that invite them and of
> their pious condemnations afterwards.
>
> In one of the cases of 2004, the court had remarked to the effect that
> petitioners would do well to lobby elsewhere if they had no point of law.
> I do not recall any discussion on that excellent advice that would have
> greatly benefited others engaging in ordinary ways. I also did not notice
> any discussion on the Nangla Maanchi case of January that High Court
> dismissed (with no dramatic remarks) as withdrawn subject to liberty to
> petition the Monitoring Committee or on the beggarly petition that was
> promptly made also to the Monitoring Committee.
>
> I think a critique of the court proceedings of 9 May (or those of 12 May)
> needs to include comment on the petitions that were before the court --
> unless, of course, we are expected to extrapolate all manners of lessons
> from a few news reports and accounts and opinions of those associated
> simply because they succeeded in securing some unbecoming utterings from
> an Apex bench.
>
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>
>
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> >
> > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
>
> To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
>



-- 
Aditi Thorat
Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister
Government of Rajasthan
0141-5116629 (Tele/Fax)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20060515/21d29e31/attachment.html