Introduction:

In a legal battle against the demolition of a JJ Cluster near Mathura Road, Delhi, the Supreme Court grapples with issues of procedural non-compliance, exemption controversies, and the right to shelter. The petitioner, representing slum dwellers, challenges the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of their plea for rehabilitation. The backdrop involves a contentious demolition by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), exempted under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) III, sparking debates on abuse of power and individual exemptions.

Arguments:

The petitioner contends that the CAQM’s grant of exemption to L&DO was unjust, lacking transparency, and violating Article 21. The petitioner questions the urgency behind demolishing listed and surveyed Jhuggi Jhopris during a demolition ban. Procedural non-compliance with demolition orders becomes a focal point, emphasizing the necessity of lawful action under GRAP-III.

On the Union’s side, the argument revolves around the permissibility of demolition under the granted CAQM exemption. The High Court’s contempt proceedings, directing action against unauthorized encroachments, further complicate the narrative. The absence of electricity bills as proof of residence adds to the complexities surrounding the slum dwellers’ claims.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, issues notice, signaling a deeper inquiry into the intricacies of the case. The controversy surrounding the CAQM exemption, the timing of the demolition order, and the petitioner’s non-involvement in the High Court proceedings will likely shape the court’s final decision.