Latest news with #AmanatullahKhan
New Indian Express
04-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Stereotyping wildlife crime must stop
Questionable validity of executive action At the outset, the alerts by WCCB and MP PCCF do not specify the legal basis of their authority to pass such measures for surveillance. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1973 (WPA) mandates the requirement of 'reasonable ground' of the commission of a crime by a person before conducting any search, seizure or arrest. On the contrary, the alerts do not lay out any reasonable ground. They only mention individual cases from years ago (in the national memo of the WCCB) and name these communities, which is opposite to the purview of WPA. Further, it favours intrusive surveillance and prejudicial treatment against the tribals. It has put alleged hunting or nomadic communities subject to surveillance just on the basis of their caste/community is prima facie contrary to these legal standards. The alerts are against the right to privacy for being disproportional, without legitimate state interest and devoid of any legal basis. Recently, the Supreme Court in the cases of Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India and in Amanatullah Khan vs. The Commissioner of Police took note of the stereotyping and selective targeting of formerly criminalised Vimukta communities. It strongly directed the necessity of preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment. Legacy of manufacturing criminality in the forests As mentioned, there is an uncanny similarity between the alerts and the caste-colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871. The erstwhile act classified around 200 Nomadic & Semi Nomadic Tribes as hereditary & habitual criminals addicted to 'systematic commission of crime'. The legislation gave blanket powers to the executive to arbitrarily classify communities, put them under surveillance and restrict their movement by forcing them to reside in settlements created by the government. Dominant caste 'village headmen' were given the power to monitor and inform about the movements of these tribes/communities. The law effectively laid the ground for 'modern' surveillance infrastructure where detailed registers were maintained to monitor the movements of these communities branded as criminals. Even though the law was repealed in 1952, many laws about repeat offenders have kept the main idea of the CTA alive and relevant today.
The Hindu
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court orders status quo on several properties in Batla House
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim stay on the demolition of several properties in the Batla House area of Okhla in Southeast Delhi. The court passed the order on Monday (June 16, 2025), on a bunch of petitions by residents of the area who challenged the notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in May 2025. Some of the petitioner claimed that their properties are covered within the PM Uday Scheme. The scheme aim is to give legal property rights to people living in unauthorised colonies of Delhi. Justice Tejas Karia ordered to maintain the status quo till the next date of hearing on July 10. The court has asked DDA to respond on the plea within four weeks. Last week, the court had declined to provide relief sought by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan through a public interest litigation (PIL) plea against the proposed demolitions of 'illegal' constructions in Batla House. The Supreme Court on May 7 ordered the DDA to demolish unauthorised structures in the area.
The Hindu
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
HC orders status quo on several Batla House properties
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted an interim stay on the proposed demolition of several properties in south-east Delhi's Batla House. The order was passed on Monday in response to a number of petitions filed by residents of the area, who had challenged the notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in May 2025. Some of the petitioners claimed that their properties are covered under the PM-UDAY scheme, which gives legal property rights to people living in Delhi's unauthorised colonies. Justice Tejas Karia ordered the status quo until the next hearing on July 10 and asked the urban body to respond to the plea within four weeks. The court had last week declined to order a stay on the demolition of unauthorised structures, which was sought by the Aam Aadmi Party legislator from Okhla, Amanatullah Khan, through a public interest litigation plea. On May 7, the Supreme Court ordered the DDA to demolish unauthorised structures in the area.
India Gazette
12-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Will move SC to challenge DDA's demarcation of properties in Batla House area": AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan on Thursday said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) demarcation of properties in the Batla House area of Okhla. The move followed directions from the High Court's Division Bench, which granted affected residents three days to file individual writ petitions. This comes a day after Khan withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court that had sought to stop demolition action initiated by the DDA. Speaking to ANI, the AAP MLA said, 'The Division Bench has given time for the affected parties to file their writ individually within three days. We have also withdrawn our PIL. People have been living there since 1971, and you suddenly declared it unauthorised and separated it from the PM-UDAY scheme.' '...The manner in which DDA wants to demolish this entire area is beyond my demarcation done by them is not accurate. I withdrew my plea because I will challenge the demarcation before the Supreme Court,' he said. Khan withdrew the PIL on Wednesday to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court. The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances. 'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said. At the outset of the hearing, the High Court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions. The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench. The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL. Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla. The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11. Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the Supreme Court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra. The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy. DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
Hans India
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Delhi HC refuses to entertain Amanatullah Khan's PIL against proposed Batla House demolitions
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan, challenging the proposed demolitions in the national Capital's Batla House. A Division Bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia observed that only aggrieved residents can make a claim that their properties exist beyond the proposed demolition site. Sensing the disinclination of the Delhi High Court to extend any relief, the senior counsel, appearing on the AAP leader's behalf, sought permission to withdraw the PIL. In its order allowing withdrawal of the petition, the Justice Kathpalia-led Bench took note of the submission that the legislator from Delhi's Okhla constituency would inform the residents of their right to file appropriate legal proceedings within three working days. The petition alleged that generic notices were issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to the residents in Batla House area, depriving citizens of their fundamental rights. It may be recalled that the Delhi High Court has stayed the UP Irrigation Department's demolition plans for now, offering temporary reprieve to some residents. According to the DDA, the action stems from a Supreme Court directive ordering the clearance of encroachments on public land. However, many residents claimed that due process was not followed, and they were neither given the chance to prove ownership nor offered alternative rehabilitation before receiving eviction notices. The matter reached the apex court, but a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma ordered to list residents' plea before the regular Bench for hearing in July. On May 22 and 26, two separate notices were served, one by the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department and another by the DDA, referencing Khasra numbers 277 and 279 in the affected locality. The timing and abruptness of the move sparked panic, with locals scrambling to seek legal relief.
