Law to protect illegal structures invalid, says court

CENTER'S ANTI-DEMOLITION MOVE UNDER SC HAMMER

Yet another confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature loomed large today when Supreme Court judges termed the law giving amnesty to unauthorised structures in the capital as "wholly invalid and void". The remark came, not in a judgment, but even before the case was formally heard.

As soon as the public interest petitions challenging the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act was taken up, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal told Solicitor General G E Vahanvati in clear terms: "This is pure and simple legislature overruling this court... First you come here and ask for six months' time; then you withdraw your application. We do not know whether it was part of your strategy."

They continued their tirade in the same vein: "The legislature cannot direct any authority not to comply with the orders of this court."

The Act provides for maintaining status quo as on January 1, 2006 of unauthorised development in respect of mixed land use, construction beyond sanctioned plans and encroachments by slum dwellers, hawkers and street vendors in the Capital for one year. The one-year period is to be utilised to finalise policy, norms and guidelines to deal with such violations.

The Solicitor General submitted that he himself was not satisfied with the drafting of the Act. But when he tried to point out that there was always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a legislation, the Chief Justice again asserted that the Act was invalid.

"I am not aware of the legislature exercising its powers as an appellate authority." He observed that the government had virtually given a go-by to the court order. He saw an attempt on the part of the government to overreach the court.

The court will hear the petitions on July 31 after all the parties file their statements.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had filed a detailed report on the sealing of residential properties being used as commercial ones and sought an early hearing of the matter.

In a related case, the court warned those who had given affidavits undertaking to stop misuse by June 30 that if they did not keep their word, they would be doing it at their own risk.

It directed the authorities to file details within two weeks giving the names, the dates of tampering with the seals and the dates of filing the FIRs against them. The MCD submitted that it had taken action against five of their officers who had allowed the seals to be broken.