Supreme Court defers Batla House plea, declines stay on demolition
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay the impending demolition of homes and shops in Delhi's Batla House area, observing that its earlier order of May 7 – directing action against unauthorised construction, did not warrant any interference at this stage.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, hearing a plea filed by over 40 residents, declined interim protection against the demolition drive being undertaken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department, but agreed to list the matter in July, once the court resumes full functioning after the summer vacation.
'It is our order and we have seen it… You take instructions if you would want us to simply adjourn this,' the bench told senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the residents, while referring to the earlier direction of the apex court from May 7.
'We are telling you that we have seen the papers. We can adjourn it. That is all we can do,' said the bench, making it clear that the court was not inclined to examine the issue substantively during the summer vacation.
Hegde urged the bench to at least clarify that no demolitions should be carried out in the interim. 'Let nothing happen in the meantime,' he said.
But the court stood firm. 'You will be taking a risk if you want to argue this,' the bench warned, reiterating that it would not hear the matter during the vacation and asking Hegde to 'take instructions.'
After consulting his clients, Hegde asked that the matter be listed in the week after the summer recess. The court agreed. The partial working schedule of the Supreme Court ends on July 13, after which regular hearings resume.
Hegde informed the bench that the petitioners would approach the appropriate appellate authority to challenge the demolition notices.
The dispute stems from a May 7 ruling by another bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, which directed that unauthorised constructions outside the boundaries of colonies regularised under the 2019 Pradhan Mantri-Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojana (PM-UDAY) be demolished. The order said residents should be given 'at least 15 days' notice' and allowed to 'adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.'
Acting on the order, DDA issued eviction notices dated May 26, which were pasted on several buildings in Batla House. The notices, marked by large red Xs, stated: 'This building/structure has been found to be an illegal/unauthorised structure falling in khasra number 279, village Okhla, outside PMA-UDAY colony boundary… occupants are hereby directed to vacate the premises within 15 days… the demolition programme shall be carried out from 11-06-2025 without any further notice.'
With the demolition set to begin just days before Eid-ul-Adha, anxiety has spread through the predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. Many residents, in their plea, said they have lived in the area for decades and view the notices as arbitrary and unjust.
In their plea before the top court, residents argue that the 15-day notice was not meaningfully served. Instead of individual communication or clear deadlines, the notices were simply pasted on buildings, offering no scope for redress. They claim the demolition drive is arbitrary, illegal, and in breach of the protections under the PM-UDAY scheme.
While DDA and the UP Irrigation Department claim the affected area lies outside the scheme's boundary, residents insist they qualify for regularisation or at the very least deserve a chance to be heard. The petitioners say they are legitimate homeowners with long-standing possession, and that no individualised assessment of legality was made before marking homes for demolition.
The residents had first approached the Supreme Court on May 29. At the time, the court advised them to move Delhi High Court. But the petitioners pointed out that the authorities were relying on the Supreme Court's May 7 order to justify the imminent demolitions, leaving them with no choice but to return to the top court. The bench then directed the registry to list the matter this week.
Batla House, part of the Jamia Nagar locality, has long been a densely populated working-class enclave. It first drew national attention in 2008 after a controversial police encounter resulted in the deaths of two alleged terrorists and a Delhi Police inspector. Now, the looming demolition has brought it back into the spotlight.
With Monday's development, the matter now rests in limbo until July. Meanwhile, the 15-day notice period, expiring on June 10, leaves affected families facing an uncertain and anxious wait, coinciding with one of the year's biggest religious festivals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
MCD urges use of slaughterhouse for Eid sacrifices, citing NGT guidelines
New Delhi: Ahead of Eid, Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( ) has issued a public notice urging residents to use the designated slaughterhouse facility for animal sacrifices, in line with environmental guidelines. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Officials said the advisory is based on a directive from the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which raised concerns about pollution in the Yamuna River caused by untreated animal waste entering drains during past celebrations. "To facilitate those observing Eid, the Ghazipur slaughterhouse will remain open and accessible," the notice states. "Residents are reminded that, as per the NGT order, disposing of blood and animal remains in open drains is not permitted. A clean and sanitised mechanism must be followed for waste disposal." MCD also plans to launch an awareness campaign to promote responsible disposal of animal remains and related waste. "Our zonal teams have been instructed to actively disseminate information in their areas. While routine checks are being carried out to prevent unauthorised slaughtering, efforts are being stepped up this year to discourage open-area sacrifices," said an official. Another official noted that preparations have been completed at the Ghazipur slaughterhouse. "The facility offers animal sacrifice as a paid service. To make the process smooth and convenient, we've set up dedicated counters for the public," the official added. MCD has emphasised that the objective is to support religious practices while ensuring hygiene, public health, and environmental safety.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Waqf Umeed portal tantamount to contempt of court, claims Muslim Board
The Union government's plan to unveil the UMEED portal to digitise the registration process for Waqf properties across India has met with expected criticism from Muslim bodies, notably, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is planning to challenge the move in the Supreme Court. The Board contends that at a time when petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 are under consideration of the Supreme Court such a move is tantamount to contempt of court. The UMEED portal, it is claimed, is based on the recommendations of the Act. Judgment reserved The Supreme Court, it may be noted, has heard several petitions against the Waqf Act, including those by many Muslim bodies, and reserved its judgment in the final hearing last month. 'The Waqf Act 2025 is currently under consideration in the Supreme Court. Most Muslim organisations have rejected it. The Opposition parties, human rights organisations, as well as Sikh, Christian, and other minority communities have also declared it unacceptable. It is unfortunate that despite this, the government is launching the Waqf Umeed Portal from June 6 to make the registration of Waqf properties mandatory. This is entirely illegal and constitutes contempt of court,' said All India Muslim Personal Law Board president Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani. The Board has appealed to State Waqf Boards besides common Muslim citizens to refrain from registering Waqf properties on this portal until the court delivers its verdict. 'It seems like a move to implement the Waqf Act through the back door,' a Board official said on condition of anonymity. The AIMPLB fears the government through the portal UMEED, an acronym for Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development, ostensibly meant to usher in greater transparency and better management of Waqf properties, is using it as a ruse to stake claim on Muslim properties through the Waqf-by-User clause in the new Act. The clause has been hotly contested in the Supreme Court. Property registration mandatory Incidentally, the UMEED portal makes the registration of Waqf properties mandatory and aims to integrate them all into a centralised digital platform. Developed under the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, the portal will require all Waqf properties to be registered within six months of its launch. The registration is said to be a long drawn-out process, needing comprehensive details of the property. The Minority Affairs Ministry, under which the portal will operate, has offered technical assistance besides detailed guidelines on the process of registering a property. The AIMPLB, however, contends that, if implemented, any Waqf property not registered on the portal, may be treated as disputed, and the community may even lose ownership over it. 'The registration is entirely based on the disputed law, which has been challenged in court, and labelled unconstitutional. Therefore, the Muslim Personal Law Board strongly opposes it. We will soon approach the apex court against this move of the government,' Mr. Rahmani said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
SC allows manufacturing unit's closure, orders ₹15 cr ex-gratia for workers
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the closure of a unit manufacturing biscuits for Britannia Industries Limited (BIL) for over three decades by overruling a Bombay High Court verdict. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra passed the verdict on an appeal of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd (HSML) against the high court's February 17, 2023 order. While HSML initially offered Rs 10 crore as a goodwill gesture to its employees, the court enhanced this amount to Rs 15 crore and ordered its payment within eight weeks. Considering that some of the employees may be, with the closure of this concern, losing the only job they have known and still others would be, for no fault of their own, rendered unemployed, we appreciate the gesture made by HSML. Such a statement is taken on record," the court said. Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for HSML, had left it to the court to decide on the enhancement. We deem it just and proper to further enhance the appellants' offer by a sum of Rs 5 crore, thus, making it Rs 15 crore instead of Rs 10 crore, as mentioned in our order... Let the amount be released forthwith, as per their entitlement, in favour of the employees and, in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date of the judgment, it said. HSML was engaged in biscuit manufacturing exclusively for BIL for over three decades under successive job work agreements and the latest agreement of May 22, 2007 was terminated by BIL with effect from November 20, 2019, following a six-month notice period. In response, HSML applied for closure of its operations under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitting the application on August 28, 2019, and notifying its workers shortly thereafter. The case reached the Bombay High Court through petitions after the Maharashtra State Government allegedly failed to respond to the closure application within the statutory period. The state government said that a letter of September 25, 2019, amounted to a refusal of permission. HSML contended that the delay triggered the deemed approval clause under the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. Justice Karol, who authored the verdict, considered whether the state government's communication of September 25, 2019, qualified as a valid refusal order under the Industrial Disputes Act. The bench also dealt with the question whether the deputy secretary, who issued the communication, was legally empowered to do so. The verdict ruled in favour of HSML and held that the letter of September 25, 2019 did not constitute a valid or reasoned order of refusal as mandated by law. The deputy secretary, it held, was not the 'appropriate government' under the Act, and had no authority to seek resubmission or revision of the closure application. The bench then held since no valid order was passed within 60 days of the application, permission to close must be deemed granted, effective from October 27, 2019. We hold that the application dated August 28, 2019 was complete in all respects, and the 60-day period for the deemed closure to take effect would be calculable from said date," it said. Secondly, the deputy secretary was not the appropriate government who could have asked HSML to revise and resubmit the application for closure as the authority was only vested with the minister concerned, it said. "The minister did not, even in the slightest, consider the merits of the matter independently, much less with or without any application of mind. Subdelegation to the officer was not permitted by law, and, therefore, any communication made by him would be without any legal sanction, the verdict said. The bench reiterated the constitutional right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) and closures must still adhere to statutory procedures that safeguard public interest and employee rights. The bench acknowledged the humanitarian aspect of the case and appreciated HSML's willingness to provide additional compensation. The amount was ordered to be disbursed among the affected employees within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
