CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

Current Affairs Primers

June - 2022
Demolition Drives

Relevance- Prelims- Not much; Mains- GSII- Fundamental

Rights and associated issues

Why in the News

 For the past two weeks, the country has seen a frenzy
of demolition drives. Article 300A of the Indian
Constitution declares unequivocally, “No individual
shall be deprived of his property except by the
authority of law.”

 This concept of serving ‘justice’ quickly and coldly

using bulldozers originated in Uttar Pradesh. Following
protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of
2019, the Uttar Pradesh government issued orders to
recoup damages from people accused of harming
public property.

 The state government maintains that these

demolitions are in response to illegal encroachments.

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 1

 CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

 However, the fact that these arbitrary demolitions are

being carried out against suspected rioters from a
single neighbourhood and in the immediate aftermath
of the riots indicates that their objective appears to be
to impose collective punishment.

Problems Associated with Demolition Drives

1. The Right to Adequate Housing

 The right to housing is a fundamental right

protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

ICESCR

 Article 11.1 of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
recognises “everyone’s right to an acceptable standard
of living for himself and his family, including
appropriate food, clothing, and housing, and to the
continuing development of living conditions.”

 Furthermore, under Article 11.1, countries are

required to take “necessary efforts” to ensure the
realisation of certain rights, such as the right to
adequate housing.

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 2

 CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

 States may limit the rights recognised under ICESCR

only if the limitations are decided by legislation in a
manner compatible with the nature of these rights and
solely to promote the general welfare of society.

 However, any restriction put on the Covenant’s rights,

such as the right to appropriate housing, cannot result
in the abolition of these rights.

 Article 5 of the ICESCR expressly acknowledges this.

International Human Rights Law Framework

 It is also a well-documented right under the

international human rights law framework, which is
binding on India.

 For example, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (UDHR) specifies that “everyone has the
right to a standard of living appropriate for the health
and well-being of himself and his family, including
food, clothing, housing, and medical treatment.”

 Furthermore, international law prohibits arbitrary

interference with an individual’s right to property.

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 3

 CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

 For example, Article 12 of the UDHR specifies that “no

one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with
his private, family, home, or communications, nor to
attacks on his honour and reputation.”

 Article 12 additionally states that “everyone has the

right to the protection of the law from such
interference or attacks.”

ICCPR

 Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR) further states that everyone
has the right to hold property alone or in conjunction
with others, and that no one shall be unfairly deprived
of his property.

 Thus, arbitrary interference with an individual’s

property is a flagrant breach of the ICCPR.

Supreme Court decisions

 Olga Tellis et al. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation et

al. (1985):
o The Supreme Court found in this case that
evicting pavement dwellers using undue force

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 4

 CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

without giving them an opportunity to explain is

unconstitutional.
o It is a violation of their right to a living.
 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)
o In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that “due
process of law” is an inherent aspect of “procedure
established by law,” explaining that such
procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable.
o If the procedure established by law is imaginative,
harsh, or arbitrary in nature, it should not be
deemed procedure at all, and thus not all of the
requirements of Article 21 would be met.
 Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana v. Inderjit Singh
(2008)
o In this instance, the Supreme Court said
unequivocally that if the duty of giving notice is
mandated by local legislation, it must be followed.
o The country’s highest court has stated
unequivocally that no authority can proceed with
demolitions, even of illegal structures, without
giving the occupier notice and an opportunity to
be heard.

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 5

 CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

Other Significant Decisions

 In cases such as Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab

(1980), Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997), and most
recently Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), the
Supreme Court established the principle that the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
must be read and interpreted in a way that enhances
their conformity with international human rights law.

Way Forward

 The court, as the keeper of India’s constitutional order,

must act and place appropriate checks on the
executive’s uncontrolled exercise of authority.
 Courts should use international law to fight the
nationalist-populist narrative.
 Any justification for a demolition effort as a
punishment for a criminal crime goes completely
against recognised criminal justice canons.
 The use of demolition drives as a retaliatory action,
even with the stated goal of reducing violence, is a
clear violation of the premise of the rule of law.

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 6

 CIVIL SERVICES CLUB

© CIVIL SERVICES CLUB, BHOPAL - 7747068666 Page 7