Latest news with #TalhaAbdulRahman
Scroll.in
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Why the judiciary is responsible for the current spate of slum demolitions in Delhi
In the first week of June, hundreds of houses in Madrasi Camp, a slum cluster in Delhi's Jangpura neighbourhood, were demolished by the Delhi Development Authority. The demolition followed an order from the Delhi High Court, passed on July 8, 2024, in a public interest litigation. The litigation had nothing to do with Madrasi Camp – its residents were not even a party to the case. The original petition was filed against two private builders for alleged illegal construction in a completely different neighborhood of Delhi, Shaheen Bagh, several kilometers away from Jangpura. In a sweeping order, the High Court expanded the scope of the petition, directing authorities to remove all encroachments from the Yamuna floodplains, a move that suddenly put thousands of homes in slum clusters abutting the river, including those in Madrasi Camp, at risk of demolition. 'This is a classic case of the court passing an order without appreciating the legal protections available to slum dwellers,' argued Talha Abdul Rahman, an Advocate on Record at the Supreme Court who represented some of the residents in court. 'The order was passed without even hearing the people whose lives it would upend.' The demolition at Madrasi Camp is not an isolated incident. Over the last year, Delhi has witnessed a spate of evictions from slums, often carried out with little to no notice. According to legal experts, this has been enabled by a recent shift in the judiciary's approach, which has increasingly tolerated summary evictions and diluted the legal rights of the urban poor. Play Safety net For over a decade, slum dwellers in Delhi were protected by a robust legal framework. The foundation was laid by the Delhi High Court's landmark 2010 judgment in Sudama Singh v Government of Delhi. The court held that the right to housing is a fundamental right and that slum residents could not be treated as 'secondary citizens'. It mandated 'meaningful engagement' with residents before any eviction and directed the government to frame a comprehensive rehabilitation policy. This led to the enactment of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act in 2010 and the subsequent notification of the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy in 2015. The policy laid down a clear three-pronged test for a slum to be eligible for rehabilitation: it must have come up before January 1, 2006; the individual shanties within it must have been built before January 1, 2015; and it must consist of at least 50 households. The policy prioritised on-site rehabilitation – upgrading the slum where it stood or relocating residents within a five-kilometer radius to ensure their livelihoods and children's education were not disrupted. This framework was further cemented in 2019 by the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ajay Maken v Union of India. The court explicitly warned authorities against viewing slum dwellers as 'illegal encroachers' and laid down a detailed protocol for surveys and rehabilitation, making it clear that no demolition could occur without first completing this process. U-turn In 2022, however, the judiciary signalled a significant change of attitude when it came to slum dweller rights. In Vaishali (Minor) v Union of India, the Delhi High Court ruled that the 2015 rehabilitation policy was applicable only to the residents of 675 slum clusters identified in a list estimated to be three decades old, prepared by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. 'This judgment has been the turning point,' said Anupradha Singh, an advocate and co-founder of the Nyay Neeti Foundation, which provides legal aid to marginalised communities. 'This list was prepared in the 1990s and has not even been notified. It is not mentioned in the 2015 policy or its parent Act.' The 69th National Sample Survey Office report from 2012 identified 6,343 slums in Delhi. By limiting the policy's protection to just 10% of them, the High Court's judgment made lakhs of slum residents vulnerable to eviction without rehabilitation. 'Welfare legislation must be interpreted in a liberal, inclusionary manner,' Singh said. 'However, this judgment is based on apprehension and exclusion.' This exclusionary approach has since been followed by the High Court in a series of cases in which the court has refused to provide relief to residents of demolished slums because of them not being part of the 675-cluster list. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in July 2023, further cementing the restrictive interpretation. Protector to destroyer The case of Madrasi Camp slum is another example of this new judicial approach that does not centre the fundamental rights of slum dwellers. The original public interest litigation in the Shabnam Burney case had nothing to do with the slum. Instead, it was a targeted petition against two builders in Shaheen Bagh. 'The court fell into error by expanding the scope of the petition to the whole of Delhi and passing a carte blanche order,' said Rahman. He contended that the order was passed in ignorance of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act and the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, which protect these slums. Significantly, the High Court's order even bypassed the protection granted to the list of 675 slums in its own 2022 Vaishali order. Rahman pointed out that Madrasi camp was within that list. The court's order in Shabnam Burney effectively gave the executive a free pass to carry out demolitions of any slums it deems to be on 'the Yamuna river bank, river bed and drains flowing into river Yamuna'. 'The authorities are now using this court order as a shield to carry out demolitions,' said Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, an advocate who has also represented slum dwellers. 'They go to the ground and say, 'We are only following the court's directions.'' Indeed, demolitions have been carried out in the Bhoomiheen camp in Kalkaji, Chander Shekhar Azad colony in Wazirpur, Shiv Basti in Patel Nagar and Sanjay Camp in Gokal Puri, even though all of them are part of the list of 675 protected slum list. This trend, of the judiciary providing open sanction to the executive for demolitions, is what legal experts find most alarming. 'The state wants to shun its responsibilities and put the burden on the court,' said Harshit Anand, a Supreme Court advocate who has represented slum dwellers in eviction cases. 'The court, in turn, is becoming more executive-minded than the executive itself.' Mishra described this as 'windshield mentality'. 'A person travelling in a car would always see jhuggi dwellers, street vendors or the homeless as something which is dirtying their view and their roads,' he explained. 'The courts are failing to see that the very people whose homes they are ordering to be demolished are the ones who are servicing the city.' Human cost The consequences of these demolitions are devastating. Families who have lived in these areas for decades, with their livelihoods and social networks deeply embedded in the locality, are suddenly uprooted. In the case of Madrasi Camp, residents are being offered rehabilitation in Narela, nearly 40 kilometres away. 'Most of these people are daily wagers, domestic workers, drivers,' said Rahman. 'How can they travel 40 km every day for work? Their children go to nearby schools. Their entire lives will be disrupted.' Even for those who are deemed eligible for rehabilitation, the process is fraught with uncertainty and hardship. They are often shifted to poorly constructed transit camps or relocated to flats in far-flung areas that lack basic amenities like schools, shops, and transport. The courts, once seen as the last resort for the city's most vulnerable, now seem to be overlooking their plight. 'There has been a shift in the judicial attitude,' said Singh. 'The courts are not inclined to grant relief. They see these people as illegal encroachers.'
Mint
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Waqf Act Row: Centre has filed ‘false affidavit,' Muslim body tells SC ahead of crucial hearing. What is the charge?
Waqf Act Row: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has accused the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led Union government of submitting incorrect data in the Supreme Court in the ongoing case against the Waqf Law. The apex body of Muslim clerics in India has sought action against the officer concerned in the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs for filing what it calls a 'false affidavit'. The Board has objections to the Centre's statement that the number of Waqf properties uploaded to the central portal after 2013 has "shockingly increased by 116 per cent," news agency PTI reported. 'It appears that in its affidavit, the Union of India is suggesting that all the properties registered as Waqf before 2013 were immediately uploaded on the WAMSI portal, when it became operational. At page 158, the first column with the title 'number of properties in 2013' to say that the number of Waqf properties reflected therein were the only registered properties is mischievous,' the AIMPLB has informed the Court through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman ahead of a crucial hearing in the case scheduled for May 5. Centre has filed its 1,332-page preliminary affidavit in the Supreme Court seeking dismissal of petitions challenging the constitutional validity ofWaqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Centre pointed out a "mischievous false narrative" surrounding certain provisions of the law. The government claimed a "shocking increase" of 116 per cent in the number of Waqf properties in the country since 2013. It also opposed the arguments over the necessary registration of "Waqf by user" properties till April 8, saying if the provision is interfered with by an interim order, it would amount to the "creation of a legislative regime by a judicial order". The SC had on April 17 granted the Centre a week's time to file a response to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the controversial law. "The deponent of the counter-affidavit has not been candid to this court and, it appears, has carefully avoided making a statement that 'all the registered Waqf properties were uploaded on the web portal in the year 2013'. Since this crucial aspect is missing in the affidavit, the sanctity of this chart itself is seriously doubtful," the AIMPLB has said. The Board said that the deponent (the officer who filed the affidavit) must file an affidavit and state that the number of properties reflected on the WAMSI) portal contained all the registered Waqfs as on 2013. "Thus, the claim that there has been a 'shocking' increase in the number of Waqf properties since 2013 is a claim that is unsupported and amounts to scurrilous allegation in pleading. This Hon'ble court has the power to strike off such pleadings," the board has said. It assured the court that until then, waqf, including waqf-by-user, will neither be denotified nor its character changed. The concept of 'Waqf-by-user' refers to a practice where a property is recognised as Waqf based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn't a formal registration. The Supreme Court had fixed the next hearing in the case for the week commencing May 5, when the responses of the Centre, states, and petitioners opposing the Act will be filed. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, that came into force earlier this month, was challenged by a batch of petitions. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed the bill during the recently concluded Budget Session of Parliament. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the proposed law on April 5. The claim that there has been a 'shocking' increase in the number of Waqf properties since 2013 is unsupported and amounts to scurrilous allegation in pleading. First Published: 4 May 2025, 07:28 AM IST
Hindustan Times
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Waqf act: Petitioners refute Centre's ‘116% property rise' claim
Petitioners challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 have told the Supreme Court that the Centre's claim of a 'shocking' 116% increase in waqf properties since 2013 is 'misleading' and based on suppressed facts. In a detailed response filed by advocate Talha Abdul Rahman ahead of Monday's crucial hearing, the petitioners argue that the Centre has misrepresented data by failing to mention that properties counted as 'new' were actually waqfs registered before 2013 but later updated on the Waqf Asset Management System of India (WAMSI) portal. Also Read: SC refuses to entertain fresh petitions challenging Waqf (Amendment) Act 'It appears that a public official, who is also the in-charge of the said portal, has either deliberately suppressed this fact or casually made this chart to falsely depict a picture which does not exist,' the affidavit states. The petitioners call the government's claim 'unsupported and amounts to scurrilous allegation in pleading.' The response comes after the Centre on April 25 filed a preliminary affidavit justifying the 2025 Act, in which it claimed that total waqf land before 2013, including the pre-independence era, was approximately 18 lakh (1.8 million) acres, with an additional 20 lakh (2 million) acres added between 2013 and 2024. The government described this as a 'shocking' 116% increase, arguing that the law was necessary to manage waqf properties amid complaints of encroachment on government and private land. Also Read: Shimla's Sanjauli mosque unauthorised, MC chief orders building's demolition The petitioners have urged the court to stay the Act, arguing it changes a legal position that has existed for 125 years and reflects 'a distrusting view on Muslims to manage their own affairs.' They note that the law is being altered 'after 75 years of having attained freedom.' Pointing to discrepancies in government data, the petitioners state that while official figures claim 665,476 waqf properties exist in 2025, data from CEOs of Waqf Boards shows only 330,008 properties. They explain that the WAMSI portal counts 'Waqf Estates' - which may comprise land, buildings, warehouses, dargahs, graveyards, etc., as one property if created by a common waqif through the same instrument - differently than individual properties. Also Read: 'We were told Delhi HC on Waqf land': CJI flags 'concerns' as Supreme Court hears pleas against Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 'Obviously, in that situation the waqf estate will be one and different units of the same estate will be part of the same estate,' the affidavit said. On the question of staying the law, the petitioners cite previous cases including challenges to the Maratha reservation law, the now-repealed farm laws, and OBC reservations in central educational institutions where courts stayed implementation pending hearings. 'Stay on a statute is a matter of judicial discretion when the court is satisfied that the law is ex facie unconstitutional, or considering the balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest,' the affidavit states. The petitioners argue that the Act gives 'sweeping powers to the collector, deletion of waqf by user, presumption of government properties by operation of law' and risks 'obliterating the status of lakhs of unregistered waqf properties in one go without any rational or material basis.' Responding to the Centre's argument about essential religious practices, the petitioners assert that charity is fundamental to Islam and includes the right to manage properties as a community. They point out that the Centre's interference is only permissible on issues of 'public order, health or morality, each of which does not arise in this case.' 'Therefore, the test of 'essential religious practice' is not triggered,' the petitioners argue, adding that the government 'cannot invoke essential religious practice test to escape the legal challenge.' The petitioners urge the court to examine the law not only under Articles 25 and 26 (religious freedom and property administration) but also Articles 14 (equality), 19 (fundamental freedoms), and 21 (life and liberty). The Centre had cited Article 26(d) of the Constitution, which requires administering properties 'in accordance with law,' to justify legislative regulation. It argued that the reforms serve 'compelling objectives of transparency, accountability, social welfare and inclusive governance.' The government also maintained that the concept of waqf by user originated when 'writing or executing deeds for anything was a rare phenomenon,' but mandatory registration since 1923 means 'those who deliberately evaded or avoided to get 'waqf by user' registered cannot claim the benefits of the proviso.' The petitioners counter that 'the consequence of refusing waqf status to a property on account of non-registration under the new law cannot be accepted.' The Supreme Court, which will hear the matter on Monday, has indicated it will hear only five lead petitioners on the constitutional questions raised. These include Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Arshad Madani, social worker Muhammad Jameel Merchant, AIMPLB general secretary Mohammed Fazlurrahim, Manipur MLA Sheikh Noorul Hassan, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi. The court had earlier recorded the Centre's assurance not to change the status of waqf properties or appoint non-Muslims to waqf bodies until further orders.
