Law Is Worth Tinsel If Underprivileged Can’t Get Justice, Courts Need To Be Sensitized
Case: Samarpal & Ors V. Uoi & Ors
Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar
Case No.: W.P.(C) 4785/2008
Court Observation: “Law, with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice. At the end of the day, our preambular goal is not law, but justice with all its legalese, is worth tinsel, if the underprivileged cannot get justice.”
“Given the length of time for which this petition has remained pending, this right would, however, enure to the petitioners‟ benefit only if they are able, additionally, satisfy the respondents that they continue, till date, to be jhuggi residents,”
“The homeless, who people the pavements, the footpaths, and those inaccessible nooks and crannies of the city from where the teeming multitude prefer to avert their eyes, live on the fringes of existence. Indeed, they do not live, but merely exist; for life, with its myriad complexions and contours, envisaged by Article 21 of our Constitution, is unknown to them. Even a bare attempt at imagining how they live is, for us, peering out from our gilt-edged cocoons, cathartic. And so we prefer not to do so; as a result, these denizens of the dark continue to eke out their existence, not day by day, but often hour by hour, if not minute by minute,”
“The onus that the law places on the petitioner who petitions the Court, to positively establish every ingredient necessary to entitle him to relief has, in the case of the impecunious with meagre resources at hand, to be tempered with the conviction that, if the litigant is entitled to relief, relief should not be denied to him on technical considerations. As one of the three co- equal wings of the government, albeit functioning independent of, and uninfluenced by, the other two, the judiciary is required to remain as sensitive to the call of Articles 38 and 39 as the legislature, or the executive.”
“In fact, the Relocation Policy does not address the plight of persons who, though the jhuggis in which they were residing at the time of visit by the authorities had come up after 30th October, 1998 were, in fact, residing in jhuggis elsewhere prior to the said cut-off date,”
“It stands acknowledged by the Railways, therefore, that the jhuggis which came up in the Lahori Gate area in 2003 were peopled by dwellers of jhuggis on the other side of the track, from where they were removed by the Railways in 2003. There were, therefore, at least some Lahori Gate jhuggi dwellers who had been jhuggi residents even prior to their shifting to Lahori Gate at the instance of the Railways,”
“Hounded by poverty and penury, they have no option but to comply. Slum dwellers do not stay in slums out of choice. Their choice of residence is a last ditch effort at securing, for themselves, what the Constitution regards as an inalienable adjunct to the right to life under Article 21, viz. the right to shelter and a roof over their heads. As to whether the roof provides any shelter at all is, of course, another matter altogether,”
“It would be for the Railways to verify the authenticity, genuineness and acceptability of the concerned document. In case any of the petitioners is required to produce any additional document, in the event of the documents produced by said petitioner(s) being found to be unsatisfactory, the Railways would apprise the concerned petitioner(s) accordingly,”
“This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and not, in any event, later than 6 months from the date of production of the documents by the concerned petitioner(s) before the Railways,”
Previous Posts
Cancellation Of Bail Cannot Be Limited To The Occurrence Of Supervening Circumstances: Supreme Court
Section 313 CrPC Examination Not A Mere Procedural Formality; Trial Court Has To Question Accused Fairly With Care And Caution: Supreme Court Download Judgement
