Delhi High Court Denies Petition to Halt Demolition of Hindu Refugee Camp

Court's Decision on Refugee Camp Demolition

The Delhi High Court has turned down a request aimed at preventing the Delhi Development Authority from demolishing a camp established by Hindu refugees from Pakistan, located in the Majnu Ka Tila area along the Yamuna river, until an alternative site is provided for the residents.

On Friday, Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed the petition filed by Ravi Ranjan Singh, who sought a directive for the authority to allocate a different plot to the refugees in accordance with the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy prior to any demolition.

This policy is designed to offer permanent housing solutions for slum dwellers in Delhi.

In his petition, Singh also requested the construction of embankments along the Yamuna to safeguard the camp, which accommodates approximately 800 residents, as well as other similar structures and religious sites in the vicinity, while preserving the river's integrity, as reported by a legal news outlet.

Singh highlighted that the Citizenship Amendment Act was established to grant citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from neighboring nations, aiding them in fleeing religious persecution, according to another news source.

The Act facilitates a fast-tracked citizenship process for refugees from six minority religious groups, excluding Muslims, from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, provided they have resided in India for six years and entered the country by December 31, 2014.

In the ruling issued on Friday, the court stated that Pakistani refugees cannot be accommodated under the Delhi Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy due to their foreign nationality status.

The judge advised the petitioner and other refugees to first obtain Indian citizenship through registration or naturalization by applying under the Citizenship Amendment Act.

“It is important to note that if such an application is accepted, the affected refugees will be recognized as Indian citizens and will be entitled to all rights and privileges available to any ordinary citizen of India,” the ruling indicated.

However, the judge clarified that even Indian citizens cannot claim alternative allotment as an absolute right, especially in cases where the land they occupy is categorized as specially prohibited areas, such as Zone ‘O’ in Delhi, which pertains to the floodplains along the Yamuna.

“It is acknowledged that the camp established by the refugees is located in the floodplains of the Yamuna,” the court noted, referencing a 2015 order from the National Green Tribunal that mandated governmental agencies to reclaim areas in the floodplains that were under unauthorized occupation and to take measures to restore the ecological health of the Yamuna.

“Considering the critical state of the Yamuna River, this court firmly believes that no interference with the ongoing restoration and rejuvenation efforts of the river can be justified at the petitioner’s request,” Sharma stated.

He emphasized that this position remains unchanged regardless of any humanitarian or sympathetic arguments presented to the court, as it would hinder and delay the execution of public projects.

The ruling also mentioned that the court had made attempts to engage with relevant authorities to assist in the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees.

“However, these efforts have not yielded results, seemingly due to a typical case of bureaucratic delays, particularly from the Union of India,” it stated. “Nonetheless, this court cannot take on the responsibility of creating a policy to improve the situation of the refugees.”

The court annulled an interim order issued on March 13, 2024, which had granted Singh temporary relief and instructed the Delhi Development Authority to refrain from taking any coercive actions against him, as reported by a legal news outlet.