Case Study

Recently, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) demolished close to 1,000 houses in one of New Delhi’s underprivileged areas known as Tughlakabad. The demolition resulted into the displacement of over 2.5 lakh people which was carried out as per the court order. All constructions/ houses which come under 100 meter radius from the walls of Tughlaqabad Fort would be demolished, the order stated.

The houses belonged to the underprivileged section of society, mostly migrant workers from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. Some of them have been living for over 30 years. The residents also have electricity bills, voter ID and Aadhaar. They have bought land from the locals and have constructed their houses by following the government regulatory norms.

To ensure that their houses become legal or they get protection from any demolition drive, the residents allege that they paid bribes to local officials belonging to ASI, DDA, MCD and police. In turn, the officials promised that their houses would not be demolished.

The demolition drive case goes back to 2001. A petitioner filed a case in the court for the protection of the Fort. The matter got its final order in 2016 from  the Supreme Court for the demolition of illegal constructions in Delhi. Since then, there has been demolition drive and several encroachments have been removed.

The demolition is carried out as per the processes laid down by the courts time to time. Like, the residents are given prior notice. The concerned department has to also carry out surveys for the rehabilitation of eligible residents at any alternative place.

But the processes are very complex and are full of immense challenges in terms of corruption, nexus, lack of availability of alternative land and difficulties in identifying eligible residents, etc. Due to these problems, demolitions are done without proper rehabilitation of residents. This results into huge loss and inconvenience to the residents, including the education of children. Since they are migrant workers, largely they work as daily wage earners, house-maid, auto-ricksha driver and in informal sector. Hence, they suffer from loss of jobs and livelihood.

It has become part and parcel of urbanisation that first, encroachments are allowed to thrive and then, a sudden concern for the protection of the environment and monuments is shown, which eventually results into punishing the vulnerable section of society. In this context, ponder on the following questions and give your response:

a) Discuss the causes of growth of encroachments, unauthorised constructions and colonies in urban areas.

b) Where does the moral responsibility lie: the government and its machineries, the courts or the residents? Explain why of their moral responsibility with justification.

c) Discuss your remedies so that there is an ethical urban governance wherein the cities become more inclusive and even the vulnerable section can live with dignity.

Answer.

a) Causes of growth of encroachments, unauthorised constructions and colonies in urban areas:

1. Poor urban planning: Root of all problems is lack of planned urbanisation. According to NITI Aayog report on urbanisation 2021, 60 % cities are growing without any plan.

2. Inadequate capacity to govern: all urban machineries are poorly staffed and are defunct institutions.

3. Lack of ethics in governance: All machineries lack accountability, responsiveness and moral obligation to make cities better. There is no accountability and coordination system.

4. Corruption and poor regulation: people those who are told as encroachers are not in fact responsible for encroachments, rather officials of different machineries are corrupt and take bribes and allow such encroachments to thrive.

5. Rural-Urban migration: Due to lack of employment opportunities in rural areas, many people, especially landless poor migrate to urban areas in search of livelihood.

6. Unavailability of affordable housing in urban areas: In the past, adequate housing was not planned for these people in middle or upper class areas, to which they provide services. As a result, a number of jhuggi bastis mushroomed all over urban cities.

7. Poverty & unemployment: Most of these people are employed in the informal sector with low or intermittent income and thus cannot afford houses in urban areas.

b) Moral responsibility:

The government & its machineries

• Government has the moral responsibility under ‘social contact’ to ensure social justice (John Rawls).
• The weaker sections of the society cannot by themselves have access to basic facilities due to inequality present in the society.
• Corruption, inefficiency of urban local bodies and administration.
• Also, as the administration is first allowing these residents in first place and not taking action by themselves rather waiting for court orders. The government have now moral responsibility to rehabilitate them at another suitable place.
• In the landmark decision concerning pavement-dwellers, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis & Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1985) held that the right to life also includes the “right to livelihood” and that no eviction shall take place without notice and hearing those affected. Further, in Chameli Singh vs. State Of U.P. (1995), the Supreme Court recognised the “right to shelter” as a component of the right to life under Article 21 and freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(e).
• Therefore, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure decent shelter for all with basic amenities.

c) Remedies:

Short term

• Slums/Jhuggis should not be removed without providing the resident any alternate housing.
• Upholding the principles of natural justice to the most marginalised groups: The affected population should get the opportunity to present their opinion. No eviction or rehabilitation should be conducted without their prior informed consent.
• In-situ rehabilitation: 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. Government should provide alternative accommodation to those living in slums/Bastis, either on the same land or in the vicinity within a radius of 5 Km. In exceptional circumstances, it can be even beyond 5 Km.

Long term

• Urban planning: Unless there is planned urbanisation which has inclusiveness to address India specific urban development, encroachment removal will give only ad hoc solution.
• Institutional capacity building and an accountability system: As of now it is easy to punish the weak and pass on responsibility on them for encroachments but in actual practice the courts should punish government officials, not people. Governments neither focus on capacity building nor on accountability system.
• Local government should ensure that no new jhuggi comes up in the city. Use of satellite maps periodically to keep an eye on any new constructions. New illegal constructions can be removed immediately.
• Affordable housing/rental housing program: To make cities more inclusive and provide dignified living to urban poor people, the government should implement affordable housing and rental housing programs.

The Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs has initiated Affordable Rental Housing Complexes (ARHCs), a sub-scheme under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Urban (PMAY-U). This will provide ease of living to urban migrants/ poor in the Industrial Sector as well as in a non-formal urban economy to get access to dignified affordable rental housing close to their workplace.

• Proactive and responsive administration: The local administration should be responsive towards the needs and problems faced by the vulnerable sections of Urban cities. They should ensure basic amenities like drinking water supply, sanitation, electricity supply etc. to them.
• Education and health services: Investment in education yields best results. Government should ensure that quality education and health services reach the urban poor people. Mohalla clinic in Delhi is one such example where poor people are getting health services free of cost.

 Conclusion:

The people living in jhuggis perform critical economic activities in urban areas like drivers, vegetable vendors, maid servants, auto and taxi drivers, etc. They too have the right to life with dignity. Ethical urban governance will ensure that these people have dignified lives.

All talks of social justice, citizen-centredness and ethics in governance are also demolished with demolition of encroachments in case when residents were issued government documents. The courts must not only protect environmental ethics but also human dignity and social justice. They should know the ground realities that before the eyes of helpless children their houses are demolished. Protecting ecology is meaningless without protecting humanity.