SC stays proposed demolition of jhuggis at Sarojini Nagar, asks Centre to deal humanly
New Delhi, Apr 25: The Supreme Court on Monday came to the rescue of over 1,000 slum-dwellers by staying the Centre's proposed demolition for a week of around 200 jhuggis at Sarojini Nagar here, saying they should be dealt with humanly and cannot be simply thrown.
A bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for two minor residents including Vaishali whose 10th board examinations are starting on April 26, that thousands of people will be ousted without any other rehabilitation scheme in place.
"Deal with them humanly when you deal with them. As a model government, you cannot say you would not have a policy (on rehabilitation) and simply throw them away. You are dealing with families, the bench said.
No coercive steps be taken till the next date of hearing, the bench told Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, appearing for the Centre, and posted the matter for hearing on May 2.
The interim stay on demolition, granted by the Delhi High Court earlier, was ending on Monday.
The law officer, who wanted the protection against demolition to be confined to the two petitioners who have come to the court, assured the bench that no coercive steps would be taken against all the residents till the next date of hearing.
At the outset, Singh, assisted by lawyer Aman Panwar, said that the residents, who are over one thousand, cannot be banished.
Where do you expect thousands of people to go? Some rehabilitation scheme has to be there. Even in the Haryana matter, the rehabilitation was directed to take place.., the senior lawyer said, adding that the names of over 172 families are there and they have records like Voter ID cards in support of their claims.
"Having some documents where for election they have been enrolled does not confer the right, the law officer said.
The Board examinations are starting from Tuesday and at this moment, they cannot be allowed to be ousted, he said.
The bench asked the Centre not to precipitate the matter till the bench hears and decides the case.
"Look at your notice, what we have found in the impugned notice is that you have said hand over the government land. People from all over India, go occupy lands, something they do not have a choice with. They cannot afford the rates," Justice Joseph said.
The bench did not agree to the submission of the Centre that protection against demolition be confined to those who have come to the court only.
"We are looking at documents which say they have been there since 1996. Should it be that only these people be protected and not the others? When the court is examining the matter, we cannot let the issue be precipitated..., the bench said.
On Friday, a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana had taken note of the submissions that the plea needed an urgent hearing in view of the imminent threat of demolition of jhuggis' (shanties).
The apex court, however, had refused to extend the stay without hearing from authorities last Friday.
The Union ministry of urban development on April 4 issued eviction/demolition notices to all residents of the jhuggis' asking them to vacate the place within one week.
The plea said that the slum dwellers have been living there since 1980 and they do not want to stall any government project at the site.
However, the residents, besides deferment of a proposed demolition, for the time being, wanted rehabilitation and relocation of their jhuggis' as per the provisions of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Act.
The DUSIB Act casts an obligation on government authorities to frame a scheme for rehabilitation and relocation of jhuggis' before any action of eviction is undertaken.
The Delhi government had taken a plea before the Delhi High Court that the jhuggis' in question was not notified under the DUSIB Act and hence, the residents were not eligible for rehabilitation.
The single judge and the division benches of the high court had relied upon the submissions of the DUSIB and dismissed the plea of residents.
The appeal, filed in the apex court, referred to a response received under the Right to Information Act and said that the city government and its authorities have not notified any Jhuggi in Delhi under the DUSIB Act and have only prepared a list of 675 jhuggis.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
