Guwahati: The Supreme Court on August 12 said authorities dealing with illegal constructions have to enforce the law while also considering the impact of demolition on families who may be left without a home.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observation while hearing a petition filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance, a non-political organisation. The petition sought a common policy for dealing with long-standing unauthorised constructions and rehabilitating families affected by their demolition.
The court, however, declined to frame a uniform policy, observing that circumstances and requirements differ across states and Union Territories. It said such matters primarily involved policy decisions by the Centre, state governments and Union Territories.
The bench disposed of the petition but permitted the organisation to submit a copy of its plea to the Union government and the governments of states and Union Territories. The petitioner can also raise the issues before the respective authorities while they formulate their policies.
The court acknowledged the organisation’s concern about people whose right to shelter could be affected by demolition drives. During the hearing, the Chief Justice said that once an authority decides to remove an illegal structure, it should also consider what would happen to the family living there.
The bench indicated that authorities therefore face two responsibilities: illegal construction cannot be allowed to remain simply because people have been living there, but the impact of removing such structures on affected families should also be taken into account.
The petitioner argued that access to shelter is closely linked to human dignity and said demolishing long-standing settlements without rehabilitation could affect residents’ livelihoods and living conditions.
It submitted that some unauthorised colonies had existed for three or four decades, with authorities in certain cases collecting municipal taxes and providing water and electricity connections to residents. Some properties in these settlements had also reportedly been converted to freehold ownership.
The organisation argued that authorities should not allow unauthorised settlements to remain for decades and later demolish them without considering the consequences for the people living there.
The petition had sought an expert committee to prepare and oversee guidelines for demolition and rehabilitation. It also suggested providing temporary accommodation of about 15 to 20 square yards to families displaced by demolition.
Justice Bagchi observed that the situation could vary considerably from one state to another, making a single policy difficult to apply across the country.
The bench ultimately said the Supreme Court could not prescribe one policy for all states and Union Territories. It expressed hope that the concerns raised in the petition would receive due consideration from the authorities concerned.