NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave enough indications that the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006, imposing a one-year moratorium on demolition and sealing of commercial premises operating illegally from the Capital's residential areas might not stand legal scrutiny as it sought to nullify its judgment.

Observing that serious questions of law were involved, a three-judge Bench of the Court admitted petitions filed by the Delhi Welfare Residents' Associations Joint Front, the Federation of Naraina Vihar Residents' Welfare Associations and an NGO, Citizens' Voice, challenging the Constitutional validity of the legislation that seeks to maintain the status quo as it existed in the Capital on January 1, 2006.

"To benefit land mafia"

The petitioners said Parliament had passed the legislation to benefit land mafia and violators of the law as well as encroachers on public land at the cost of law-abiding citizens.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, Justice C. K. Thakker and Justice P. K. Balasubramanyan,told Solicitor-General G. E. Vahanvati: "Prima facie this type of statute has been passed only in this nation by which all the orders of the courts and laws being obeyed by the citizens are suspended. You want to act as an appellate authority for all the courts, whether it is the lower court, the Delhi High Court or this court."

The Chief Justice said: "You have granted exemption for one year. You can go on [and] extend it for 20 years. Tell us what is the message Parliament wants to give?"

Ground realities

The Solicitor-General replied, "In passing the impugned legislation, Parliament has recognised the ground realities, namely the distortion in planning, huge growth in volume and influx of citizens to Delhi, huge growth and demand for housing and commercial space and the shortage of land."

When he said this law was passed by Parliament unanimously, the Chief Justice said, "We are not concerned about unanimity. What was Parliament doing for 20 years on this issue? Was it sleeping? We are more concerned about maintaining the sanctity of our judgments and the rule of law. Can you take shelter under `people's interest' to violate the law?"

Mr. Vahanvati said, "There is criticism for the delay in bringing in the law. The fact that we acted late will not make the Act illegal. The mandate of Parliament was to remedy the situation."

Expressing the Court's concern, the Chief Justice said: "We talk of making this nation a developed country. We are talking of good governance. Is this the way to do it? It is unheard of that a past Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi has to come to this court [questioning the law]."

"The only question now," the Chief Justice added, "is what is the interim order to be passed. We are not inclined to say `no' stay or a complete stay. We are for a middle path. We want to give you some protection from demolition to certain categories of buildings. You tell us which of those categories need such protection."

The Solicitor-General replied that he needed time to take instructions.

In its brief order the Bench said, "We are of the view that many serious questions of law are sought to be raised which require deeper consideration and elaborate submissions. In this view, we admit the petitions."

On the question of interim order, the Bench granted time till August 10 for the Union Government to come out with suggestions on how such protection could be given. It asked amicus curiae Ranjit Kumar to discuss the issue with the members of the monitoring committee and give suggestions to take a middle path.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail