SC orders status quo in Ahmedabad slum demolition case, Assures to pay rent differential
New Delhi, Apr 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday directed that status quo be maintained at a slum site in Chharanagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where demolition was allegedly being carried out despite the Court's earlier protective order.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea by 49 slum dwellers who claimed that they were being forcibly evicted without proper notice or rehabilitation, in violation of the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973.
The matter was first mentioned before the Court on Thursday, when temporary protection from demolition was granted till Monday (April 28). However, after reports emerged that demolition activities had resumed at the site, the petitioner's counsel, AoR Sumitra Kumari Choudhary, urgently mentioned the matter again, seeking enforcement of the interim relief.
The Bench questioned the petitioner's counsel regarding relocation of slum dwellers as part of the area's redevelopment plan. When it was submitted that the rent compensation offered of Rs 6,000 per month was insufficient even for a slum accommodation, the Court advised the petitioners to accept the available alternative housing, and assured that the Court would address the rent differential if necessary.
Posting the matter for detailed hearing on April 28, the Court emphasized that no further demolition should take place in the interim.
The petitioners had earlier approached the Gujarat High Court challenging a public notice dated January 29, 2025, which required them to vacate their homes within 30 days.
They contended that individual notices were not served, and only a public notice was issued, violating their rights under the Slum Act. They also alleged that demolition began on March 20, 2025, without proper procedure.
The State of Gujarat, in response, argued that the area had been declared a 'Slum Clearance Area' in 2019, and that all structures were unauthorized. A work order had been issued to a private developer, and multiple public notices were pasted at the site. The State maintained that the petitioners were attempting to stall a long-pending redevelopment project, which had already benefited hundreds of residents.
The High Court had rejected the slum dwellers' plea, holding that due procedure was followed and over 508 beneficiaries were already relocated and awaiting new housing. It further observed that seven residential towers had already been constructed, undermining the claim that the petitioners were unaware of the redevelopment process.
The High Court had granted 30 days' time for voluntary vacation, provided the petitioners filed an undertaking.
Now, with the Supreme Court stepping in and indicating sympathy toward the plight of the slum residents, particularly on the issue of inadequate rent compensation, the case is set to be further heard on April 28, with the Court's assurance of balanced relief keeping the demolition in abeyance till then.
UNI SNG SJC
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Tech YouTuber slams Flipkart after getting used MacBook Pro in sealed box: ‘This isn't a mistake, it's negligence'
Devanshu Dhandhal, a tech YouTuber, recently shared how he had an unpleasant experience with Flipkart, where he was scammed by a seller not once but twice. Revealing details of the incident, Dhandhal called out the seller, who has allegedly been scamming customers since 2023. Dhandhal said it all began when he ordered a MacBook Pro worth Rs 2.6 lakh from Flipkart. However, he reportedly received an old and used model in a sealed Apple box. He requested a replacement and unboxed the laptop at the EKart office, and was shocked to receive an old MacBook again, he said. 'I immediately requested a replacement, and this time I unboxed the product at the EKart office under CCTV, and again the MacBook had smudges and marks so basically not new (second unboxing video attached below). 2 times. 2 wrong deliveries,' he wrote on X. Dhandhal said he reached out to customer support, which initiated a return and offered him compensation of Rs 13,000 and Rs 18,000 when he rejected the offer. 'After a discussion with customer care they started a return and then after 2 days they called me and offered me a compensation of 13K which I rejected, then 18K I rejected again and finally they offered me 10% which I rejected again,' he shared. The YouTuber claimed that Flipkart rejected the return after the negotiation. 'And after all this negotiation they rejected the return. So I called them again and I asked for 10% compensation as it was a lot of hassle by talking to them. And moreover, I was able to clean the marks but the laptop was not new in the first place,' Dhandhal said. He also claimed that the seller has been scamming customers for years. 'Users on LinkedIn, Reddit, YouTube, and X have posted about the same seller since 2023,' he wrote. See the post here: I just got scammed on @Flipkart — not once, but TWICE. So I ordered a ₹2.6 lakh MacBook Pro and got a used, old model inside a sealed Apple box. We filmed the entire open box delivery, you can see that in first attached video. I immediately requested a replacement, and this… — Devanshu Dhandhal (@mrtechpedia) June 8, 2025 Tagging Flipkart, Dhandhal said, '…this isn't a mistake, it's negligence. You are enabling fraud through your platform.' Soon after the post came to light, Flipkart issued an apology and promised to look into the matter. 'We'd never want you to get anything but what you ordered and are extremely sorry about this instance. We want to sort this out for you. Please help us with your order details securely, so we can look into this. Awaiting your response,' the company responded.
The Hindu
10 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
Hans India
11 minutes ago
- Hans India
Kerala HC stays Lakshadweep administration's order to remove Mahal, Arabic from school curriculum
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has stayed the Lakshadweep administration's recent decision to remove Mahal and Arabic from the curriculum of schools in the Union Territory. The division bench, chaired by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, stayed the administration's decision. "The point emphasized by the Petitioner, which prima facie, we find merit in, is that for the implementation of the (National Education) Policy in a particular area, there has to be an application of mind and a study of local conditions to determine what is best for the educational interests of the community, in order to achieve the objectives of the Policy. The Policy itself contemplates such an application of mind, noting that various factors are involved in the said decision. As contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, a language holds deep cultural significance, and any changes could have serious ramifications," said the Court. The Court pointed out, "Ordinarily, the Court would not interfere in matters of education policy, particularly with respect to the selection of languages in the curriculum. However, this is self-restraint based on the premise that decisions relating to education policy are made by experts in the field after an in-depth study and wide consultation," added the Bench. Incidentally, it was on May 14th, the Education Department of the Union Territory issued the order removing the two languages under the 2023 National Curriculum Framework (NCF), which is part of the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP). According to the order, all schools in Minicoy island will offer Malayalam and English as the first and second languages, and Hindi will replace the local language Mahal and Arabic as the third language. This led to widespread protests on the islands. It was against this order that a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by Ajas Akber, a social worker and President of the Lakshadweep Unit of the National Students Union of India. The petitioner pointed out that Mahal is the exclusive language spoken by Minicoy islanders, and it symbolises their tradition and culture. He went on to further point out that Mahal was being taught only in primary classes and was a foundation course to consolidate and uphold the tradition and culture of Minicoy, which happens to be a pure linguistic minority among the Union Territory. Akber also pointed out that by removing the Mahal from the curriculum, the Lakshadweep administration has placed an open challenge to the constitutional rights of a minority community, which has distinct traditions and culture. The Court, after hearing both parties, stayed the order for the pendency of the PIL and left it open to the Lakshadweep Administration to conduct appropriate studies on the issue. "It is open to the Union Territory to conduct a study of the local conditions in the context of the prevailing Education Policies and to engage with all the stakeholders through a meaningful process of consultation (not merely for the purpose of record). If such studies and consultations are carried out, it will be open to the Respondents to apply for appropriate orders, and such application will be considered on its own merits," read the Court order.
