The national capital witnessed another round of 'bulldozer politics' on Monday after the BJP-ruled South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) scheduled an anti-encroachment drive at Shaheen Bagh, the epicentre of a three-month-long agitation against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act beginning December 2019.
While the Supreme Court, unlike the previous instance when the North Delhi Municipal Corporation carried out demolitions in Jahangirpuri last month, refused to interfere or stay the exercise on a petition by the Communist Party of India (Marxist)'s Delhi unit, the drive was halted due to stiff resistance from local residents of Shaheen Bagh as hundreds of people gathered on the streets and atop buildings.
A senior SDMC official also said that the encroachments that were previously found along the stretch were found to be “already removed”. A scaffolding outside a building that was set to be razed was voluntarily removed by the shop owners in the building, prompting civic authorities to call off the exercise.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan, along with leaders from the Congress, protested at the spot against the drive and said the BJP-led civic body was trying to create an issue between Hindus and Muslims.
Situation tense
The situation in the area remained tense with residents protesting amid the presence of police and paramilitary forces.
Delhi Congress chief Ch. Anil Kumar said the civic body had “woken up after 15 years” to play bulldozer politics over poor people, first at Jahangirpuri, and now at other locations in the city.
“The BJP is targeting eight lakh street vendors to rob them of their livelihoods, which will in turn push them into crime,” said Mr. Kumar.
Delhi BJP president Adesh Gupta later wrote to the Delhi Police Commissioner stating that some AAP and Congress leaders had obstructed the anti-encroachment drive and asked for action to be taken against them. Hours after his letter, a copy of which was also sent to SDMC Mayor Mukesh Suryan, the civic body lodged a complaint with the police against Mr. Khan and his supporters for obstructing the anti-encroachment drive.
“When there is no encroachment, then how can anyone obstruct the encroachment drive? I had removed the encroachments in the area three days ago,” Mr. Khan reacted. “Also, the road belongs to the PWD [under the AAP government] and the department has not asked the SDMC to conduct any anti-encroachment drive.”
The AAP, however, did not offer an official reaction to Mr. Gupta's letter.
FIR registered
Deputy Commissioner of Police (south-east) Esha Pandey said an FIR had been registered against Mr. Khan and his supporters on the complaint filed by the SDMC under Sections 186 (obstructing any public servant), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) under the Indian Penal Code.
When contacted, Mr. Khan said the police were yet to inform him about the FIR. But the AAP did not comment on the development.
The matter also reached the Supreme Court, courtesy the CPI(M) plea filed through senior advocate P.S. Surendranath and advocate Subhash Chandran. While rejecting it, a Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai. however. told the municipal authorities to follow the law and issue prior notice before "removing structures".
‘Routine drives’
Though the court would definitely intervene in case of unauthorised demolitions, it said it would not protect illegal encroachments on public roads and pavements against "routine drives".
The court questioned the CPI(M)'s locus standi in the matter. "Why have you come here? Why have the affected parties not come?" Justice Rao asked.
The court made it clear that it would not be reduced to a platform for political parties.
Mr. Surendranath submitted that the party had not filed the petition out of party interest but out of public interest.
He said the court had intervened in the Jahangirpuri demolition case. This was a similar case and it could be tagged and heard along with the Jahangirpuri case.
The apex court clarified that it had earlier stopped the Jahangirpuri demolition because buildings were being demolished.
"Do hawkers also have structures and buildings? They just have platforms," Justice Rao asked.
"We will definitely interfere if there is any violation of law, but will not step on anticipations raised by a political party... This is not a platform for political parties," Justice Rao observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the municipal authorities of Delhi, said the petition is full of "misrepresentations" intended to create a "political hype" that one particular community is being targeted.
"I would like to inform Your Lordships that these are routine drives to remove encroachments. In such cases, the statute does not require us to give prior notice... The High Court itself had directed us to remove encroachments in Delhi... Such a drive was carried out in central Delhi. When the [anti-encroachment drive] starts, hawkers remove themselves..." the Solicitor General submitted.
The court refused Mr. Surendranath's plea to at least halt the drive for the next two days. "Not at your [CPI(M)] behest," Justice Rao shot back.
The court asked whether the party wanted to withdraw its case and try again before an "appropriate forum", namely the High Court, or whether the apex court should dismiss the case on merits.
The CPI(M) chose to withdraw its petition with liberty to approach the High Court.
