The Indian nation, in recent weeks, has been in the spotlight due to a surge in demolition drives. The question becomes pertinent as to how these acts correlate with laws and rights defined by the Indian constitution and international human rights laws. In focus are several articles and acts including Article 300A, 44th Amendment, UDHR, Article 25, Article 21, ICESCR, and various Supreme Court verdicts, causing this issue to gain massive relevance.
Article 300A of the Indian Constitution distinctly says, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law”. This concept, of dispensing swift justice through bulldozers, originated in Uttar Pradesh, where, following protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, the state government passed orders to recover damages from those allegedly involved in destroying public property. State authorities asserted that these demolitions were a response to illegal encroachments. However, the timing and the targeted community indicate a possibility of collective punishment.
The Problem With Demolition Drives
Demolition drives raise several questions, particularly regarding the right to adequate housing. The right to housing is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, Article 11.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also recognizes this right and obligates countries to take appropriate steps to ensure its realization.
However, arbitrary limitations on rights like the right to adequate housing cannot lead to their destruction. This aspect is specifically recognized in Article 5 of the ICESCR. Furthermore, international human rights law framework, including Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), protects the right to property against arbitrary interference. Arbitrarily infringing an individual’s property rights is hence a gross violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Notable Supreme Court Judgements & Their Implications
Several Supreme Court judgements have played crucial roles in interpreting and enforcing these constitutional rights and international laws. In the case of Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors (1985), the Supreme Court decreed that eviction using unreasonable force, without giving inhabitants a chance to explain, was unconstitutional. This ruling laid a precedent, identifying such acts as violations of the right to livelihood.
In another landmark case, Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), the “due process of law” was deemed an integral part of the “procedure established by law”. The ruling indicated that any legal procedure must be fair, reasonable, and not arbitrary.
Lastly, in Municipal Corpn., Ludhiana v. Inderjit Singh (2008), it was made clear that no authority could proceed directly with demolitions, even of illegal constructions, without providing notice and an opportunity of being heard to the occupant.
The Way Forward: Judicial Intervention & Rule of Law
Looking ahead, it is essential for the judiciary, as the custodian of India’s constitutional order, to impose constraints on the unchecked exercise of power by the executive. Justice must not be compromised under nationalist-populist discourse. The use of demolition drives as a retaliatory measure or a penal consequence to criminal acts runs counter to the norms of criminal justice. Upholding the rule of law is paramount in these situations, ensuring that actions taken are just, legal, and respectful of fundamental rights.
Educating oneself about their rights has never been more crucial. As an example, many might not know that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to marry the person of one’s choice, a critical component of the right to life. Understanding one’s rights and the limits of governmental power is a crucial step towards fostering a healthy democracy.
Through the challenging times, it is essential to remember and uphold the values that form the crux of human rights – respect, justice, dignity, and equality.