“Surplus Humanity” and the Margins of Legality - Chapman University

Do Not Delete 12/12/2010 7:34 PM
46 Chapman Law Review [Vol. 14:1
or the hardship of monsoons or school examinations. Today, demolitions
of slums are being directed on the orders of the courts. 305
How did the courts accomplish this sharp turn in a very
short span of time? This was accomplished by deploying the
whole array of neoliberal values, priorities, and prescriptions
related to urban policy. Having mandated resettlement and
alternate housing for those evicted in earlier decisions, when
again faced with the question the Supreme Court articulated a
newfound interest in fiscal responsibility of the state, and linked
it with implied irresponsibility of the urban poor. 306 In 1993, the
Supreme Court expressed a concern that ―the public exchequer
has to be burdened with crores [tens of millions] of rupees for
providing alternative accommodation to [those] who are
trespassers on public land,‖ and directed that where resettlement
was done, the resettled should not be given new land on
leasehold, but on license. 307 The short rope of a revocable license
would keep the ―irresponsible‖ disciplined and controlled.
The next step was to braid fiscal responsibility with a desire
for a clean city, and graduate the ―irresponsibility‖ of the poor
into criminality. In 1996, the Supreme Court ordered that
hazardous industries be moved outside the city limits and that
cities be cleaned up. 308 The Delhi High Court was quick to fall in
line and ordered eviction of all squatters in Delhi because it ―is a
show window to the world of our culture, heritage, traditions and
way of life. It cannot be allowed to degenerate and decay.‖ 309 The
Supreme Court picked up the pace in 2000, bemoaning that while
Delhi was a ―showcase of the country,‖ yet ―no effective initiative
of any kind‖ had been taken for ―cleaning up the city.‖ 310 The
Court characterized slums as ―large areas of public
land . . . usurped for private use free of cost,‖ and a plan to
provide the free land for resettlement was rejected as ―a proposal
which attracts more land grabbers. Rewarding an encroacher on
public land with an alternative free site is like giving a reward to
a pickpocket.‖ 311 Giving garbage priority over the destitute, the
305 Rakesh Shukla, Rights of the Poor: An Overview of Supreme Court, ECO. & POL.
WKLY. 3755, 3757 (2006).
306 See Usha Ramanathan, Illegality and the Urban Poor, 41 ECO. & POL. WKLY.
3193, 3194 (2006).
307 Id.
308 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 750, available at
http://www.nlsenlaw.org.; B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 594 (India),
available at http://www.ielrc.org/content/e960.pdf.
309 Samitii, CWP 4215/1995, at 128 (emphasis added).
310 Almitra Patel v. Union of India, (2000) 2 S.C.C. 679, 684–85 (India) (emphasis
added).
311 Id. (emphasis added). The Delhi High Court endorsed this language: ―One cannot
but use the expression as stated in the said [Almitra] judgment.‖ Wazirpur Barton