The recent demolition drives in Haryana have brought to the fore questions about fundamental rights and the rule of law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s suo motu (on its own motion) intervention has fueled debates on whether such exercises could constitute a form of ethnic cleansing. This article sheds light on the relationship between demolition drives, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.
Understanding Ethnic Cleansing
The term “Ethnic Cleansing” was established by a UN-appointed Commission of Experts led by Prof. Cherif Bassiouni in 1992. It implies deliberate acts committed by one ethnic or religious group aimed at forcibly removing another group from certain geographic areas using violent and terror-inspiring means. Though not defined in Indian law, these types of actions contravene constitutional guarantees as specified under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
Reasons for Court’s Intervention
The High Court questioned the Demolition Drive because it was executed without proper “demolition orders and notices”, thus violating procedural law. As per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no person can be stripped of his life and personal liberty except through the procedure that the law establishes. Despite broadening the scope of this article, it appears to be disregarded by some elected governments.
The Rule of Law vs. Rule By Law in Constitutional Context
The principle of the rule of law is understood as governance based on law and not men. Its roots trace back to Article 39 of Magna Carta, 1215, which has had its presence in Article 21 of the Indian constitution. This article’s scope has been expanded by the Supreme Court over time. However, when rule by law comes into play, it denotes using law as an instrument of suppression and control to push a political agenda.
Procedure for Demolition in Cases of Illegal Occupations
Municipal Acts, like the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, prohibit encroachments on public roads and footpaths. These acts require municipal authorities to issue notices to individuals or establishments involved in illegal encroachments before taking any action. If the concerned parties fail to respond satisfactorily, the authorities have the right to proceed with the demolition, taking into consideration the nature of the violation and the response towards principles of natural justice.
Problems Associated with Demolition Drives
The right to housing is recognized under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and various international laws, such as Article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Despite these provisions, demolition drives can infringe upon these rights, leading to significant problems for affected individuals.
Related Supreme Court Judgements
Several Supreme Court judgments have addressed these issues. The Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors, 1985 case ruled that eviction using unreasonable force is unconstitutional. In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, 1978, the court stated that “due process of law” is an integral part of “procedure established by law”. Further, the Municipal Corpn., Ludhiana v. Inderjit Singh, 2008 case emphasized the need for issuing notice before proceeding with demolitions.
Moving Forward: Upholding Fundamental Rights and Rule of Law
In light of these considerations, there is a growing need for vigilance against the erosion of constitutional values. Judicial intervention is key to prevent power misuse and ensure justice is delivered fairly and in line with legal procedures. Ultimately, the ongoing tussle between the rule of law and rule by law underlines the importance of upholding constitutional ideals for a just and inclusive society.
