Delhi High Court dismisses plea against demolition of Pakistani Hindu refugee camp
New Delhi:
dismissed a petition seeking a direction to Delhi Development Authority not to disturb or demolish the Pakistani Hindu refugee camp at Majnu ka Tilla until an alternative piece of land is allotted to the residents.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
A single-judge bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that the Pakistani refugees could not be rehabilitated under the DUSIB policy due to their foreign nationality status. "Needless to state, the effect of the acceptance of such an application would be that the aggrieved refugees shall be deemed citizens of India and would be able to enjoy all rights and benefits available to any ordinary citizen of India," it said.
The court rejected the plea filed by Ravi Ranjan Singh, stating that he and other similarly placed refugees have no right to continue occupying the area. It vacated the interim relief granted in March last year.
Singh also requested that DDA be directed to make embankments along the Yamuna so that such colonies and religious structures might be protected, as was the case with the Akshardham temple and Commonwealth Games Village, and that the sanctity of the river might also be maintained.
The court impressed upon the petitioner and the other refugees to first acquire Indian citizenship under Section 10A of
. It added that the aggrieved parties could approach the member secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, for help.
The court observed that even Indian citizens couldn't claim alternate allotment as an absolute right, particularly in cases concerning specially prohibited areas like zone O of Delhi, i.e.,
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
the Yamuna floodplain.
The bench noted the camp was situated on the Yamuna floodplain and National Green Tribunal had directed to several govt agencies to repossess such areas and take steps to restore the river's ecological health.
The court further added that its efforts to engage with the authorities to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation didn't succeed due bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly on the part of Centre.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Aluminium industry body says Trumps move to double tariff will hurt sector
New Delhi, Aluminium industry body AAI has expressed concerns that US President Donald Trump's announcement to double tariffs on aluminium imports in that country will hurt the Indian manufacturers who are already under pressure from surging low-cost imports. On May 30, Trump announced that he would double the existing 25 per cent tariffs on aluminium imports from June 4. "The 50 per cent tariff announced by Trump will damage the Indian aluminium industry, which is already under pressure from surging low-cost imports," Aluminium Association of India said. The metal has strategic importance to the country and critical to industries such as defence, aerospace, energy transition, telecommunications, power and construction, it said, adding that both primary aluminium and poor quality scrap are entering the country in large volumes, threatening to create a surplus, suppress domestic prices, and undercut the viability of domestic producers. Though the government just announced a 12 per cent provisional safeguard duty on certain steel imports, AAI said there should be duty guardrails for the aluminium industry as well, which has so far invested more than Rs. 1.5 lakh crore to set up the current domestic primary aluminium capacity of 4.2 million tonnes per annum . FIMI Director General B K Bhatia stated that the major share of Indian exports of aluminium is accounted by US valuing about USD 946 million. A further increase in tariff is bound to have adverse impact on Indian aluminium exports market. "We are hopeful that this issue will get resolved during ongoing trade negotiations between India and USA," he said. In 2024-25, India exported iron, steel, and aluminium products worth USD 4.56 billion to the US, with key categories including USD 587.5 million in iron and steel, USD 3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel and USD 860 million in aluminium and related articles. This proposed hike is tariff comes under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions if imports are deemed a threat to national security. Trump originally invoked this provision in 2018 to set the 25 per cent tariff on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium. He raised tariffs on aluminium to 25 per cent in February 2025. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
