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

Do Not Delete 12/12/2010 7:34 PM
50 Chapman Law Review [Vol. 14:1
The rationale for disparate treatment of corporate capital was
articulated:
Had such parties inkling of an idea that such clearances were not
obtained by DDA [the builders], they would not have invested such
huge sums of money. The stand that wherever constructions have
been made unauthorizedly [sic] demolition is the only option cannot
apply to the present cases . . . [especially] when they . . . are corporate
bodies and institutions and the question of their having indulged in
any malpractices in getting the approval or sanction does not arise. 332
The Supreme Court also used the ―huge sums of money‖
rationale in the Vedanta Group Case, where bauxite mining
operations in Niyamgiri, Orissa, an environmentally fragile area
home to indigenous tribal groups, were approved despite multiple
irregularities and strong objections of residents of the area. 333
Emboldened by this judicial posture, the Delhi Laws (Special
Provisions) Act 2006 was adopted, which provides for demolition
of unauthorized structures, ―whether in pursuance of Court
orders or otherwise.‖ 334 This Act gave license for the removal of
slums where ―clearance of land is required for specific public
projects,‖ and ―the Central Government may, from time to time,
issue such directions to the local authorities as it may deem fit,
for giving effect to the provisions of this Act and it shall be the
duty of the local authorities to comply with such directions.‖ 335
The end result of judicial, legislative, and executive actions is
increased ―segregation of economic classes‖ in Delhi. 336 A
―develop-ment pornography‖ 337 has flourished where slumdwellers
and squatters are held responsible for ―pressure on civic
amenities, crime, social imbalances, economic exploitation,
332 Id. (quoting the Writ Petition Against Vasant Junj Mall, Oct. 17, 2006, judgment
of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S. H. Kpadia) (emphasis added). This pattern led to the
observation that ―it is members of the so-called civil society who break laws with impunity
and who demand that the rules be waived for them, whereas members of political society
strive to become legal, to gain recognition and entitlements from the state.‖ Amita
Baviskar & Nandini Sundar, Democracy versus Economic Transformation?, 43 ECON. &
POL. WKLY. 87, 88 (2008).
333 Rahul Choudhary, Environmental Clearance: A Farce Played by MoEF—The
Vedanta Case, RADICAL NOTES JOURNAL, Sept. 24, 2007, available at
http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2007/09/24/the-vedanta-case/.
334 The Delhi Laws (Special Provisions Act, 2006 (No. 22 of 2006)), available at
http://www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/Finance/PDF/Acts%20and%20Rules/specialprovisionalAct.p
df. See also Ramanathan, supra note 306, at 3197.
335 The Delhi Laws (Special Provisions Act, 2006 (No. 22 of 2006)), available at
http://www.delhi.gov.in/DoIT/Finance/PDF/Acts%20and%20Rules/specialprovisionalAct.p
df. See also Ramanathan, supra note 305, at 3197.
336 Nikhil Joseph & Pascal Goodman, On the Outskirts of Legality: Policy and Legal
Aspects of Slum Resettlement in Delhi 19 (2008) (unpublished working paper) (on file with
the Centre for Civil Society), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1325962.
337 Rotimi Sankore, Behind the Image: Poverty and ―Development Pornography,‖
PAMBAZUKA NEWS (Apr. 21, 2005), http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/27815.