Jhuggi Demolitions : How Actions Of Authorities Go Against The Legislative Intent

What constitutes a Jhuggi and Jhuggi Jhopri Basti under the DUSIB Act, 2010?

In India, state governments and agencies have different rehabilitation policies for the Jhuggi dwellers. However, the characteristics of the jhuggis and bastis are more or less identical. Under the DUSIB Act, 2010 a ‘Jhuggi’ is a construction of a shelter on public land that may be dilapidated or constructed with immediately available materials. A ‘jhuggi jhopri basti’ is a cluster of jhuggis without basic living amenities. Sections 2(f) and 2(g) of the DUSIB Act,2010 define the jhuggi and jhuggi jhopri basti in the capital. As per section 2(f) of the DUSIB Act, 2010, any unidentified/not duly authorised pucca house on public land which is constructed for residential purposes is a jhuggi. Section 2(g) of the 2010 Act defines the Jhuggi jhopri basti as the group of jhuggis that is unfit for human habitation due to faulty arrangements, overcrowding, dilapidation, inadequate sanitation facilities etc.

To some extent, the State of Delhi has a liberal statute to rehabilitate the urban poor who cannot afford basic shelter due to the exclusionary nature of cities and financial constraints. The DUSIB Act,2010 & RR Policy, 2015 bars any eviction without proper rehabilitation. The procedure established by law also emphasizes in-situ rehabilitation unless the land was acquired for public purposes.

Who is eligible for rehabilitation under the DUSIB Act, 2010 and Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015?

The eligibility criteria for rehabilitation of Jhuggi jhopri bastis are discussed in the Part-B of the RR Policy, 2015. As per the policy, the JJ Basti which the dwellers occupied should have existed before 01.01.2006 and the Basti must exist before 01.01.2015. In addition to the cut-off date, the dweller has to produce any of the identification documents (12 documents) mentioned in Section 2 of Part B- of the RR Policy, 2015 and the same has to be issued before 01.01.2015. Finally, the name of the applicant dweller should be on the voter's list for 2012,2013,2014, and 2015 (Prior to the cut-off date, 01.01.2015) and in the year of the survey. Regarding the land belonging to the central government in the capital, as per the notification vide dated 20.06.2019 the agency (DDA) has to follow the rehabilitation and identification procedures as per the RR Policy, 2015.

However, on several occasions, the constitutional courts have put the cart before the horse to facilitate the eviction of the jhuggi jhopri bastis in Delhi. Whenever the jhuggi dwellers approach the courts against the overnight demolition orders of the LoA (Land owning Agency), the veracity of the documents which prove the eligibility criteria as per the cut-off date mentioned in RR Policy, 2015 are questioned by the court and the LoA. But contrary to this, according to point no. 6 of the Draft Protocol for removal of Jhuggis and JJ Bastis in Delhi, dated 14.06.2016, the LoA (Land owning Agency) and DUSIB are liable to verify the identification documents of the Jhuggi dwellers. Further, to garnish the preliminary proposition, the LoA and DUSIB would ask the petitioner, whether his/her Jhuggi jhopri basti is in the list consisting of 675 Jhuggi clusters in the capital, which was prepared by the Food & Civil Supply Department in the early 1990s for the supply of ration cards and an additional list which consist 82 Jhuggis prepared by the DUSIB.

As per the DUSIB & LoA’s argument, if the petitioner’s JJ Basti is not in the outdated and so-called notified list (675+82), then the same will be subjected to demolition.

The contradictory submissions of LoA & DUSIB before the Courts.

In several matters, before the High Court as well as Supreme Court regarding the forceful eviction and the rehabilitation of Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis in the capital, the land-owning agencies, as well as the rehabilitating agencies have misinformed the courts that the list of 675+82 clusters are notified/recognized JJ clusters in the capital. But on the contrary, the RTI reply vide dated 20.04.2022 debunked the statement of LoAs and DUSIB before the courts , which states that none of the JJ Bastis in the capital was notified till the date of application. The rehabilitating agency DUSIB under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Act, 2010 informed the RTI applicant that,

“DUSIB has listed 675+82 JJ Bastis lists. The lists of these JJ bastis are available in the DUSIB website i.e delhishelter.nic.in .DUSIB has not yet notified these JJ Bastis as per the provisions of DUSIB Act-2010”.

The same fact was affirmed by the respondent Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board in the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1769 of 2023, Gosiya Slum Colony Sewa Samiti & Ors v Delhi Development Authority & Ors. The DUSIB submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as follows,

…”14. That during the early years of Nineties, the Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of NCT of Delhi had identified 929 JJ Basties and had issued the ration cards to the JJ dwellers. That, over the period of time, a number of Basties were removed as per provisions of the different Rehabilitation policies by the DDA and the then Slum & JJ Department (now DUSIB). That, out of these 929 JJ Basties, the remaining 675 JJ Bastics have been listed by DUSIB and put them on its website.

15. That, since these 675 JJ Basties were the part of 929 Basties, therefore, those listed 675 JJ Basties are prior to 01.01.2006, therefore, as per Policy, dwellers of these 675 JJ Busties are eligible for rehabilitation, however, the eligibility of individual dweller has to be decided by the Eligibility Determination Committee (EDC) after verification that the JJ dweller fulfilled the conditions of the Policy”…

From the above RTI Reply dated 20.04.2022 and the counter affidavit filed by the DUSIB, it is clear that it has neither conducted any survey nor identification process to determine the total number of Jhuggi Jhopri bastis which is mandated by the 2010 Act, Rehabilitation Policy, 2015 and Draft Protocol for the removal of jhuggis in Delhi. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the 69^th NSSO survey, Delhi has 6343 slums with a 10.2 lakh population (Ajay Maken & Ors v Union of India Ors). Hence, there is no room for doubt as the existing identified lists (675+82) are not providing exact data about the total JJ Bastis in Delhi.

The shield against the arbitrary eviction of JJ Bastis

Till a few years ago Jhuggis in the capital had no protection against the arbitrary and unannounced demolitions by the agencies. The issue of unannounced demolitions came before the Hon’ble High Court during the Ajay Maken case. In the order dated 22.12.2015 (Ajay Maken), the Hon’ble Court proposed for a standard protocol for the removal of JJ Bastis in the capital and directed the DUSIB to draft the protocol after consulting the interested parties. The court also emphasised that the protocol will comply with the constitutional norms, DUSIB Act 2010 and the country’s obligation towards the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

1. Protection under the Draft Protocol 2016.

To comply with the direction of the High Court, DUSIB formulated a Draft Protocol for the removal of Jhuggis and JJ Bastis in Delhi (hereinafter the draft protocol, 2016) in its 16^th Board Meeting and notified the same on 14.06.2016. The following parties participated in the meeting and agreed on the draft protocol of removal,

i. Jhuggi Jhopri Ekta Manch

ii. Social Society – CIRIC

iii. Action aid and its partner JJEM

iv. Jagori

v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation

vi. Delhi Police

vii. Northern Railway

viii. Revenue Department of GNCTD

ix. Ministry of Urban Development, GOI

x. DDA (Delhi Development Authority)

Subsequently, the following guiding principles emerged in the meeting which was attended by the agencies mentioned above.

1. The DUSIB will be the Nodal Agency to conduct the comprehensive surveys and ascertain which of the JJ Bastis and Jhuggis would be entitled for in-situ improvement/development or re-settlement and rehabilitation.
2. It is essential that a uniform approach is adopted as regards all the jhuggis and JJ bastis in NCT of Delhi;
3. The removal of Jhuggis & JJ Bastis in Delhi will be as per the provisions of "Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation & Relocation Policy, 2015 (Annexure A) as modified from time to time. The focus of the policy is on in-situ re-development and rehabilitation of Jhuggis and JJ Bastis as a matter of principle and relocation in exceptional cases.
4. This protocol shall be followed by all agencies including the Delhi Police in the event of any action for removal of Jhuggis and JJ Bastis in the future.

The ultimate product of the meeting was that all stakeholders agreed upon the draft protocol for the removal of JJ Bastis from the National Capital and the same shall apply to the JJ Bastis situated in the Central Government’s land as well. More pertinently, the identification and joint survey has to be done by the Delhi Urban Shelter Board regarding any number of Jhuggi Jhopri Basti existing in the Capital. The meeting further emphasizes in para (iv) that the protocol shall be followed by all agencies including the law enforcement agency, ie: Delhi Police. Unfortunately, even after drawing a comprehensive protocol neither Land owning agencies nor law enforcement agencies are following the removal protocol which was drafted with the conscience of all interested parties.

As per Para 5(i) of the Draft Protocol, the Nodal agency for the survey, i.e Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board have to follow 4 steps prior to the demolition at the behest of any land-owning agency in the capital region. ie, (A) Pre-survey steps (B) Procedure for conducting the joint survey (C) Procedure for eligibility determination (D) Post-survey steps.

Further to protect the interest of Jhuggi Dwellers, the Draft Protocol mandates a Claim & Objection Redressal Committee. If the occupier has an objection against the list prepared by the Nodal Agency after joint-survey/survey, the applicant can approach the Claim & Objection Redressal Committee under Step B (viii) of the Draft Protocol and the committee is bound to pass a speaking order in a time bound manner. Hence, any demolition without a survey is illegal and contrary to the draft protocol finalised by the stakeholders.

1. Protection under the RR Policy, 2015

The RR policy of 2015 also dealt with the arbitrary demolition of jhuggis. Para 2 (a)(v) of the RR Policy, 2015 bars the eviction of JJ Bastis in Delhi if the JJ Basti is eligible for rehabilitation under Para 2(i) of RR Policy 2015. However the policy gives an exception against the bar under rare circumstances which are mentioned below,

1. there is any Court order

2. that Basti has encroached a street, road, footpath, Railway safety zone, or a park

3. the encroached land is required by the land-owning agency for specific public project as envisaged in The NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act. 2011, which is extremely urgent and can't wait.

Even in the above-mentioned extreme circumstances, the LoA (Land owning Agency) shall give a proposal to the DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) under Chapter-II, Sub-section (1) of Section (3) of the DUSIB Act,2010 in which the Chief Minister of Delhi is the ex-officio Chairman and other members as per the 3(4) of 2010, Act. The proposed demolition can be carried out only after the assent of the said Board. Here the question arises, how many Land owning Agencies had sought the assent of the board before the demolition? Did the DUSIB make all efforts to relocate the JJ Bastis as per the RR Policy, 2015?

In Ajay Maken^[1], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi clarified the law on the Rehabilitation of JJ Bastis in Delhi, particularly against the arbitrary overnight demolition of the jhuggis as we witness in the capital now. The Hon’ble High Court anticipated such an unannounced move from the executive from past encounters. The Hon’ble Court cautioned the authorities by saying that,

”Once a JJ bast/cluster is eligible for rehabilitation, the agencies should cease viewing the JJ dwellers therein as 'illegal encroachers'. The decisions of the Supreme Court of India on the right to shelter and the decision of this Court in Sudama Singh require a Court approached by persons complaining against forced eviction not to view them as 'encroachers' and illegal occupants of land, whether public or private, but to require the agencies to first determine if the dwellers are eligible for rehabilitation in terms of the extant law and policy. Forced eviction of jhuggi dwellers, unannounced, in coordination with the other agencies, and without compliance with the above steps, would be contrary to the law explained in the above decisions”.

(emphasize supplied)

Ignorance of the Principle of Stare Decis & Golden Rule of Interpretation

As I mentioned in the previous parts the Hon’ble courts always used notification and non-Notification of Jhuggi Clusters as the primary criteria for the rehabilitation of Jhuggi jhopri bastis in Delhi.

When the question arises regarding the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation under the 2010 Act as well as under Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, in Vaishali (Minor) (Through Next Friend Mrs Sita Devi) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors^[2], the Hon’ble Division bench of the High Court of Delhi adjudicated that, only notified jhuggi jhopri bastis in the capital are eligible for the rehabilitation under the relocation policy, 2015. The Hon’ble division bench said that,

…” 11. A reading of the above provision would clearly show that DUSIB has to declare a group of jhuggis as “Jhuggi jhopri basti” by way of notification. One of the conditions to be fulfilled by such a group of jhuggis is that it must be inhabited, at least by fifty households, as existing on 01.01.2006. Section 9 of the Act empowers the DUSIB to make a survey of any jhuggi basti. Section 10 of the Act provides for preparation of a scheme for removal of any JJ basti and for resettlement of the residents thereof. Section 12 of the Act provides for the re-development of the JJ basti. The above provisions are applicable only with respect to “Jhuggi Jhopri basti”, that is, inter-alia a group of fifty households as existing 01.01.2006 and duly declared by DUSIB as such by way of a Notification.

12. As noted by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have been unable to produce any such notification under Section 2(g) of the Act. Even in appeal, no such Notification has been produced by the appellants. The appellants are, therefore, not entitled to any protection under the Act.”…

(emphasize supplied)

At the beginning of para 11 of the impugned judgement, the Hon’ble Court read sections 2(g) and 2(f) which dealt with the words Jhuggi, Jhuggi Jhopri Basti and notification without considering the legislative intention of the enactment and avoided the principles laid down regarding the Right to Housing under the catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court.

Further, it is very evident that the entire ratio of Vaishali (Supra) is based on the notification and non-notification arguments of the respondent state agencies. When we examine the interpretation of 2010, Act, Chapter-1, Section 2(f) and 2(g) define the jhuggi and jhuggi jhopri basti. It is read as follows,

(f) "jhuggi" means a structure whether temporary or pucca, of whatever material made, with the following characteristics,namely:-

(i) it is built for residential purpose;

(ii) its location is not in conformity with the land use of the Delhi Master Plan;

(iii)it is not duly authorized by the local authority having jurisdiction; and

(iv) it is included in a jhuggi jhopri basti declared as such by the Board, by notification; (emphasize supplied)

(g) jhuggi jhopri basti means any group of jhuggis which the Board may, by notification declare as a jhuggi jhopri basti in accordance with the following factors, namely:- (emphasize supplied)

(i) the group of jhuggis is unfit for human habitation;

(ii) it, by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such jhuggis, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities, or any combination of these factors, is detrimental to safety, health or hygiene; and

(iii) it is inhabited at least by fifty households as existing on 31 March, 2002:

Provided that the Board may, by order, attach any jhuggi or jhuggis scattered in the nearby areas to any jhuggi jhopri basti and such jhuggi or jhuggis shall be deemed to be part of such jhuggi jhopri basti; (emphasize supplied)

Here, section 2(f) defined the jhuggi, and with the literal interpretation of sub-clause (iv) of clause (f) of section 2, an inhabitable shelter or shanty can be called as a jhuggi if it is part of the ‘jhuggi jhopri basti’ declared by the notification of the board which is constituted under section 3, sub-clause (1) of the DUSIB Act, 2010 and as per clause (g) of section 2, a group of jhuggi can be called as ‘jhuggi jhopri basti” may by notification of the Board. Simply that, a jhuggi is eligible for rehabilitation, if it is part of jhuggi jhopri basti which constitutes a minimum number of 50 jhuggis existing on 31^st March 2002. From the literal or plain interpretation of section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act, 2010 it is the discretion of the Board to notify a jhuggi jhopri basti to get rehabilitation. If the jhuggi is part of such jhuggi jhopri basti as mentioned before, the same will be granted rehabilitation as it reads with sections 1 and 2 of Part-B of RR Policy, 2015.

By inserting the word ‘may’ the legislative intention is clear that the notification of the jhuggis is not mandatory when the statute is read as a whole along with Article 14 and Article 21 of the constitution. In such a scenario the construction of the word ‘may’ cannot be replaced with the meaning of the word ‘shall’ as it nullifies the legislative intention and further caters to the injustice towards the beneficiaries under the statute. Hence, the purposive construction of the provision must be “illumined by the goal, though guided by the word^[3] of the legislation.

In Kehar Singh^[4] the Hon’ble Supreme Court outlined the importance of the intention and purpose of the legislation, the court observed that,

“…231. During the last several years, the “golden rule” has been given a go-by. We now look for the “intention” of the legislature or the “purpose” of the statute. First, we examine the words of the statute. If the words are precise and cover the situation in hand, we do not go further. We expound those words in the natural and ordinary sense of the words. But, if the words are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, we deem it as our paramount duty to put upon the language of the legislature rational meaning. We then examine every word, every section and every provision. We examine the Act as a whole. We examine the necessity which gave rise to the Act. We look at the mischiefs which the legislature intended to redress. We look at the whole situation and not just one-to- one relation…

233. For this purpose, we call in external and internal aids: “External aids are: the Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill was presented to Parliament, the reports of the Committee, if any, preceding the Bill, legislative history, other statutes in pari materia and legislation in other States which pertain to the same subject matter, persons, things or relations. Internal aids are: Preamble, scheme, enacting parts of the statutes, rules of languages and other provisions in the statutes.” …

(emphasize supplied)

In the famous Francis Coralie Mullin^[5] the Hon’ble Supreme Court reminded the living nature of the Constitution to deal with the future contingencies when it comes to the basic rights of citizens, the hon’ble court emphasized the importance of liberal interpretation of statutes along with the part III to uphold the human dignity against the arbitrariness of the executive. The court said that,

…”This principle of interpretation which requires that a constitutional provision must be construed, not in a narrow and constricted sense, but in a wide and liberal manner so as to anticipate and take account of changing conditions and purposes so that the constitutional provision does not get atrophied or fossilized but remains flexible enough to meet the newly emerging problems and challenges, applies with greater force in relation to a fundamental right enacted by the Constitution.”…

Now we can look into the intent of the 2010, Act. It was one of the rare moments in Indian legislative history when the executive and legislature adopted the principle drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in its letter and spirit. Section 1(iv) & (v) of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 has affirmed the constitutional duty of the government upon the Judicial orders of the constitutional courts by saying as follows,

…” (iv) The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chameli Singh vs. State of UP [1996 (2) SCC 549] and in Shantistar Builders vs. N.K. Toitame, [1990 (1) SCC 520] and numerous other judgments have laid down that the right to life is not a right to mere animal existence and that the right to housing is a fundamental right. Going further, in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, [1997 (11) SCC 123]. the Supreme Court held that even poverty-stricken persons on public lands have a fundamental right to housing. The Court laid down that when slum dwellers have been at a place for some time, it is the duty of the government to make schemes for housing the jhuggi dwellers. In the most recent decision of the Chief Justice's Bench in the Delhi High Court in Sudama Singh Vs. Government of Delhi [168 (2010) DLT 218], the Court referred to the provisions of the Delhi Master Plan and emphasized In-situ rehabilitation. It is only in the extraordinary situation, when In- situ rehabilitation is not possible, then only. rehabilitation by relocation is to be done. The normal rule is in-situ up-gradation and re-development.

(V) Additionally, the recent Supreme Court decision in Gainda Ram vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, [2010 (10) SCC 715] reiterate that hawkers have a fundamental right to hawk. It is, therefore, clear that the poor, who come to the city for work, must reside reasonably close to their place of work. Even apart from the legal aspect, studies have shown that resettlement at faraway places invariably force the poor to return to their informal housing arrangements close to their place of work.” …

(emphasize supplied)

Moreover, in the Sudama Singh^[6], the Hon’ble Justice A.P Shah and Justice Muralidhar emphasised the socio-economic reasons behind the jhuggis in the capital. In the historical judgment, the hon’ble court noted that,

”44. … These jhuggi clusters constitute a major chunk of the total population of the city. Most of these persons living in the slums earn their livelihood as daily wage labourers, selling vegetables and other household items, some of them are rickshaw pullers and only few of them are employed as regular workers in industrial units in the vicinity while women work as domestic maid-servants in nearby houses. Their children also are either employed as child labour in the city; a few fortunate among them go to the municipal schools in the vicinity. The support service provided by these persons (whom the Master Plan describes as „city service personnel‟) are indispensable to any affluent or even middle-class household. The city would simply come to halt without the labour provided by these people. Considerations of fairness require special concern where these settled slum dwellers face threat of being uprooted. Even though their jhuggi clusters may be required to be legally removed for public projects, but the consequences can be just as devastating when they are uprooted from their decades long settled position. What very often is overlooked is that when a family living in a Jhuggi is forcibly evicted, each member loses a „bundle‟ of rights - the right to livelihood, to shelter, to health, to education, to access to civic amenities and public transport and above all, the right to live with dignity” …

(emphasize supplied)

Currently, the SLP against Vaishali (Supra) is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court along with similar petitions.

The cost of judicial transformation and selective interpretation

It is not possible to find a specific article for the Right to Housing in the Indian Constitution. The VIIth schedule of the Constitution which demarcates the contours & subjects of the legislation is also silent on the same. However, our Constitution mandates the legislature to enact social welfare legislation for integrating the ousted—such as those from socially and economically backward classes—into the realm of mainstream society. Nevertheless, as the enactment of legislation did not solve the constraints of the integration, judicial interpretation was required at times to remove the ambiguity of the construction of legislative clauses.

The practice of legal interpretation of statutes by the judge is no different from any other hermeneutic exercise^[7]. In welfare legislation, the interpretation of the texts should be liberal to fulfil the needs of beneficiaries. On such occasions there is no room for textualism, that is the bare reading of the text without considering the context and intent of the legislation. The word ‘interpretation’ is a construction of an individual’s perception through language. Interpretation is a tool, which can either repeal or confer the rights of citizens under the law and the same subject to the perception and doctrines proposed by legal luminaries and jurists from time to time. Occasionally, interpretation may also reflect the practical wisdom of the interpreter or the jurist.

Transformation of the interpretation of welfare legislation in a series of judgments over the past decades by the Indian constitutional courts shows the erosion of certain well-enumerated doctrines and it has affected the underprivileged and historically marginalised. On several occasions, the courts relied upon a mere textual interpretation of welfare legislation leaving hundreds of the poor in limbo. Even if the texts speak about the intention and some other parts deal with the restrictive nature of the legislation, the court sometimes avoids a harmonious interpretation which is supposed to be the norm. It is not just the judicial institutions, but also various other governing branches of modern democracies that have succumbed to the philosophy of the neo-liberal order which makes the state a mere facilitator of certain class interests.

Ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy) is one of the well-known maxims that scholars or legal practitioners cite occasionally. But, is every citizen entitled to get the remedy even if the right exists under the statute or the constitution? The recent trend of our courts regarding the housing rights of Jhuggi dwellers is giving a negative answer to this question. It is to be noted that the semantics of right was never confined not just to the Legal Right since it can be a right originating from a justifiable demand as well. So, justifiable demand could be subjective. However, if you are looking for an equitable society, the restriction of interpretation to a narrowed scope would sabotage the idea of an equal and egalitarian society that the Constitution put forward. The ongoing forceful eviction of certain classes in New Delhi is a textbook example of ignorance of the law uttered by the state, as well as of the deviation from legal principles settled by the constitutional courts. The judiciary was the only state institution that has, at least in theory^[8] recognised a right to shelter. But the convenient interpretation of the law often contravenes this celebrated theory.

The State of Exception

Even after repeated judgments from the constitutional courts of the country, different agencies are still violating the law settled by the courts and unfortunately in some instances, courts are also deviating from the principles settled by their predecessors under the name of protecting public properties. In such a scenario, hundreds of poor people are rendered homeless, numerous children are being rolled out from the school registers, and old and sick people are getting stranded in the middle of nowhere. The current situation is no less than a state of exception which the analytical philosopher Giorgio Agamben theorised in his famous book State of Exception. As repeated lawlessness is getting normalised, the exception would soon or later be the law. It is the need of the hour to make a call out of this matrix of exceptions created under the disguise of protection of public land. If we fail to do so, the same would turn into the catacomb of our constitutional values envisaged by the constitutional makers.

(The Author is a Delhi-based lawyer working on Housing Rights and co-founder of the Nyay Neeti Foundation. Views are personal only.)

1. Ajay Maken & Ors v Union of India & Ors (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7618) ↑

2. LPA 271/2022 ↑

3. Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (Lexis Nexis, 2016) ↑

4. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609 ↑

5. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 ↑

6. 168 (2010) DLT 218 ↑

7. J. Weinsheimer, Gadamer's hermeneutics, a reading of truth and method, 194 (1985) ↑

8. Anindita Mukherjee, The Legal Right to Housing in India, (2019) ↑