Encroachers can't claim right to occupy public land during rehab: Delhi High Court
The order, delivered on June 6 by Justice Dharmesh Sharma, came while hearing a batch of petitions filed by residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, an informal settlement largely inhabited by migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. Around 1,200 people had approached the court seeking a stay on demolition, asking the DDA to maintain status quo and not evict them until they were surveyed and rehabilitated under the 2015 Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy. The court, however, dismissed their plea, noting that the petitions were flawed due to improper clubbing of multiple parties and causes of action. It further stated that the petitioners had failed to meet the eligibility conditions under the 2015 policy to qualify for rehabilitation.
'None of the petitioners have any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large,' the court said, adding that the right to rehabilitation arises only from policy, not from the Constitution. It also clarified that removal of encroachments and eligibility for rehabilitation are separate processes and pending claims cannot justify delaying demolition. The court allowed the DDA to proceed with demolition as per law and directed that eligible residents be allotted flats under EWS category.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Interpretation of Constitution has to be pragmatic: CJI
Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on Saturday (July 5, 2025) said the interpretation of law or the Constitution has to be "pragmatic" and in a way that suits the needs of society. Speaking at a felicitation organised for him by the Bombay High Court here, he also mentioned that recently he had received complaints about the rude behaviour of "some of the colleagues", and urged the Judges to protect the reputation of the institution. Citing a past Supreme Court judgement, Mr. Gavai said any law or the Constitution has to be interpreted in the context of "problems faced by the present generation." "The interpretation has to be pragmatic. It has to be one that suits the needs of society," he added. Judges are expected to work as per their conscience, the oath of office and law, but "should never be perturbed once the matter is decided", he said. A Judge should cut off his mind from the matter and forget what happens to it thereafter, he added. Talking about the appointment of Judges, the CJI asserted that "at no cost the independence of judiciary shall be compromised". While making appointments either to the Supreme Court or High Courts, the collegium ensures that merit is maintained while there is diversity and inclusiveness, Mr. Gavai said. He complimented the Bombay High Court— where he once practiced as a lawyer and served as a Judge— for its work, and said he feels proud when people appreciate its judgements. The CJI also said that lately he has been "receiving a lot of complaints about the rude behaviour of some of the colleagues." "Being a Judge is not a 10 to 5 job, it's an opportunity to serve society. It is an opportunity to serve the nation," he stressed, and urged the Judges to be "true to their oath and commitment." "Please do not do anything which brings disrepute to this august institution, whose reputation has been so laboriously built by the devotion and dedication of generations of lawyers and generations of Judges," he said. Speaking at another felicitation ceremony later in the evening, the CJI said the Constitution works for every last citizen of the country, be it a Judge, lawyer, an executive or a Parliamentarian. "Let us dedicate our lives to the eradication of all differences, let us give it ourselves to upholding constitutional values, let us give it ourselves towards the fulfilment of our constitutional promises," he added.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Stay polite, it helps everyone's blood pressure: Chief Justice's advice to judges
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai raised concerns over rude conduct by judges in courtrooms and noted that such behaviour towards lawyers and government officials "hardly serves any purpose."Speaking at the launch of live-streaming of Bombay High Court proceedings, the Chief Justice said he feels proud when people praise well-written judgments of the Bombay High Court. However, he also admitted that several complaints regarding the 'rude behaviour' of some of his colleagues have been brought to his attention.'Lately, I have been receiving a lot of complaints regarding rude behaviour from some colleagues. I have always believed that the opportunity to serve as a judge is not a 10-to-5 job. It is an opportunity to serve society and the nation,' said the recalled the words of a senior judge, saying that very few are chosen to serve the nation, and what is required is commitment and dedication to the cause of justice.'Behaving rudely with lawyers or frequently summoning officers to court hardly serves any purpose,' he emphasised.'One should keep the atmosphere in the courtroom pleasant—it helps maintain the blood pressure and diabetes levels of everyone, including judges and lawyers,' he added with a touch of to some judges as 'part-time judges,' the Chief Justice expressed concern: 'Another disturbing piece of news I've been receiving from a bench—which I don't wish to name—is that some judges have been behaving rudely, while others are functioning like part-time judges. If you have taken the oath to serve in this august office, then sitting for just one hour in the first half and again in the second half belittles that oath. You are not being true to it.'He urged such judges to honour their oath, saying, 'Please do not do anything that brings disrepute to this august institution—an institution whose reputation has been painstakingly built over generations by the devotion and dedication of lawyers and judges.'Inviting all to his retirement dinner on November 23 this year, the Chief Justice also addressed the importance of interpreting laws in sync with a changing society.'On the issue of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court had stated that the Constitution is a living, evolving document. Parliament must have the power to amend it to meet the needs of society arising from socio-economic developments. Therefore, when we interpret laws and the Constitution, it must be in the context of present-day challenges. The interpretation must be pragmatic and suited to the needs of society,' he about the new modality introduced by the Supreme Court—where interactions are held before recommending names for judgeships—the CJI said, 'Interaction does help. Recent incidents in some High Courts—fortunately not at the Bombay High Court—have shown that it is possible to assess candidates to some extent. One such incident occurred recently in a neighbouring High Court. I won't share the details, but I urge my colleagues at the Bombay High Court to ensure that such incidents do not take place here, where we have a rich tradition.'Later in the day, at a function organised by the Advocates Association of Western India, the CJI recalled a speech by the late Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, who had warned: 'If you do not eradicate social and economic inequalities, the edifice of democracy that has been so laboriously built will collapse like a house of cards.'Concluding on a hopeful note, the Chief Justice said that things are improving, and that '75 years is not too long for the working of a Constitution.' He affirmed that all three wings—legislative, executive, and judiciary—are working toward achieving social and economic stability.- EndsMust Watch advertisement
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
No constitutional relevance to SC in-house report on Justice Varma: Kapil Sibal
NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Saturday said the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry report in Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma's case has 'no constitutional relevance' as an investigation can only take place under the Judges Inquiry Act. Sibal also accused the government of protecting Justice Shekhar Yadav and questioned the Rajya Sabha Secretariat over its attempt to reach out to him for the reported verification of his signature on the notice to move an impeachment motion against the judge for making 'communal remarks' last year at an event. On the Justice Varma case, Sibal said, 'Under Article 124 of the Constitution, if 50 members of the Rajya Sabha or 100 members of the Lok Sabha submit a notice for moving a motion (for impeachment), then a judge's inquiry committee is set up under the Judges Inquiry Act.' But only Parliament has the power to constitute such a committee, said Sibal, who is also a senior advocate. At a joint sitting of both Houses, the impeachment motion has to be passed by a two-thirds majority for it to go through. So, the investigation has to be under the judges inquiry committee set up under the Judges Inquiry Act, he said. The Constitution does not recognise any in-house procedure, Sibal said. The MP also pointed out that Parliament states that the motion for impeachment will be brought by members and not the government. 'How does a minister make the statement that 'I will move the motion'? The government cannot rely on an in-house procedure,' he contended.
