The Supreme Court on Monday refused to intervene in the Shaheen Bagh anti-encroachment drive while strongly rejecting a CPM plea against demolitions in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh and other areas.
The Supreme Court strongly objected to a “political party approaching the court”.
Asking the CPM to withdraw its petition and approach the High Court, the Supreme Court said it would have stepped in if the “aggrieved party had come”.
| Install Our App | DOWNLOAD |
| Join Telegram Channel | JOIN NOW |
| Join Facebook Group | JOIN NOW |
| Subscribe YouTube Channel | SUBSCRIBE |
| Follow On Twitter | FOLLOW |
| Follow On Instagram | FOLLOW |
“What is this CPI(M) party filing this case? We can understand if the affected person came here. What fundamental right of a party that is violated? Is there no individual who is affected?” the bench asked.
When senior advocate P Surendranath, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the Hawkers Union was also a plaintiff, the court stated that hawkers can be removed if they are found violating the rules.
“Hawkers are persons who sell on the roads. In Jahangirpuri, we had to intervene because there was demolition of buildings. How are hawkers affected? Hawkers are those who sit on platforms. The residents or shopkeepers should come,” the bench reiterated.
“Please impose a stay (on the demolition) for at least two days,” the CPM urged.
“Not at your behest,” the Supreme Court snapped.
“We are there to protect livelihoods but not like this,” added the judges.
A furious court told the CPM, “Either you withdraw or we dismiss your plea.”
The court said: “You do not even go to the High Court. You come straight to the Supreme Court. What is this? A political party coming here and telling us what to do.”
Everyone couldn’t be given a licence to approach the Supreme Court if their house was being demolished, even it it’s illegal, said the judges.
“If there is a violation of law, we will intervene. Not because of anticipation at the behest of political parties like this. Do not file petitions like this. You spent all day here. You could have gone to the High Court if the action was not in accordance with law,” the Supreme Court said.
The top court also pulled up the civic body, demanding why it doesn’t undertakeanti-encroachment exercises without prior notice and in accordance with the law.
“We are not interfering but when you undertake these activities why don’t you do it as per law? Why don’t you issue notice to them? We are telling you don’t demolish any structures without notice,” the court said.
When petitioners accused the civic body of bringing in the bulldozers without notice, it told the court “only encroachments are being removed, no structures are being demolished” and that “no notice was needed for routine encroachments”.
