PODCAST QUESTIONS | MARCH 17, 2024

SOCIO-SPATIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DISTURBED AREAS ACT 1991 ON URBANISING SPACES IN

GUJARAT
- DEVANSH SHRIVASTAVA

Q1. In discussing the methodology for your research, you suggest the adoption of a socio-legal
approach for the understanding of ‘property’, which also serves as a critique of positive law. Can
you elaborate on how this approach offers a more nuanced understanding of policy implications?

Would you suggest using this approach for the analysis of all policy decisions with wide social
impact as a better alternative? If not, what other methodology would you suggest for the same?

Q2. In the case of Manubhai v. State of Gujarat, the court upheld the Collector's decision to
transfer property destroyed during communal riots to the government. How do you interpret the
legal reasoning behind this decision, and what precedents does it set for post-conflict property
ownership and government discretion? Moreover, shouldn't there be a mechanism for either the
retrieval of the property on behalf of its original owner, or a transfer to their heirs?

Q3. What policy changes or interventions could be implemented to mitigate self-sorting

behaviour in Ahmedabad's neighbourhoods, particularly in the context of religious and ethnic
segregation? How can urban governance entities promote inclusive community integration and
reduce the propensity for demographic clustering along communal lines? Keeping in mind that
the segregation is self-imposed.

Q4. The paper points out the mismatch between the city's master plan and the reality of informal
settlements. How can legal frameworks and urban planning be improved to better address the
needs of low-income residents and potentially create more inclusive neighbourhoods in
Ahmedabad?

Q5. The right to property is not fundamental anymore; however, in light of the other Part 3
provisions, to what extent do you believe that the Act itself can be challenged on constitutional
grounds? How far can we tread on the lines of right to equality, non-discrimination, enjoyment
of life, and dignified life under Article 21 when viewed in the light of their impact on minorities?

Q6. How far do you think we are correct in our approach to categorising ghettoization as a self-
sorting behaviour by the masses? Do you believe there is an approach that has been adopted by
similar instances outside of the Indian demographic that might be suitable to tackle this problem
here- considering how we call it self-segregation even though it is also being furthered as a result
of the existing legal framework itself?
Q7. Ghettoization of minority communities is not a region-specific issue; it is found in every part
of the nation. Instances of housing discrimination and ghettoization, even in the national capital
of the country, are very prominent, and studies show that this ghettoization is not only an
evolutionary phenomenon where the members of a community, particularly those who are
marginalised, settle together, but it is also a result of systemic discrimination where the state
actively prevents the socio-economic development of these areas. Do you think the judiciary has
the authority and the responsibility to intervene? If not, what is the solution for this issue?

Q8. While your passion for the situation in Ahmedabad is justified given your own nativity to
Gujarat, after your 2020 essay “Fencing Neighborhoods: Politics of Segregation, Restrictive
Zoning, and Searching Mobility in Ahmedabad” and your 2021 essay “Mobility as a Prohibited
Act: Thinking de-segregation through clustered neighbourhoods and gendered property
ownership in Ashant Ahmedabad,” what prompted you to write another paper dealing with a
similar topic? Have you discovered any changes in the legal landscape since publishing these
previous two essays, and has there been any change to your own opinions when it comes to the
topic of urbanised segregation in Gujarat, and perhaps even in other places, between those
articles and the current one, which is also much more focused on Gujarat specifically?

Q9. Your paper on religion and blasphemy laws tackles a wide array of themes. It goes from pre-
independence thought to revolutions in America to evolutions in history, philosophy, and an
analysis of the Indian construct. The paper reads almost like a rapid, passionate train of thought;
while if we look at your paper on the disturbed areas act on urbanising spaces in Gujarat, we can
see the clarity of thought and intention behind every word. While the first essay delved into
numerous topics with brilliance, this newer one tackled a single issue with utmost precision and
detail. As aspiring legal academicians, we have faced the problem of being attracted to too many
topics or being too haywire with our own writings. How does one achieve clarity and precision
in their writings, and how did your own experience with finding specific areas of interest turn
out, leading your writing to the juncture it is at right now?