Scale Of Human Displacement Beyond Imagination, Labelling People As Encroachers And Deploying Bulldozers No...
1. Background Context
In recent times, municipal authorities and state governments in India have carried out large-scale demolitions of residential structures, shops, or settlements, often labelling the residents as encroachers. While the stated aim is urban planning, cleanliness, or law enforcement, the scale of displacement has been unprecedented, leading to serious humanitarian concerns.
The Delhi High Court and other courts have repeatedly observed that:
Large-scale displacement cannot be done without following due process.
Labeling people as encroachers without proper notice or hearing violates fundamental rights.
Deploying bulldozers indiscriminately causes irreversible harm to human dignity and livelihood.
2. Constitutional Principles
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Includes the right to live with dignity, which encompasses adequate shelter and livelihood.
Arbitrary demolitions that destroy homes or means of living are prima facie violations of Article 21.
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Authorities must apply laws uniformly and provide reasonable classification.
Labelling only certain residents as encroachers arbitrarily while ignoring others may violate Article 14.
Doctrine of Proportionality and Due Process
Even if the government has authority, actions must be proportionate, reasonable, and procedural fairness must be followed.
Mass demolitions without notice or rehabilitation violate this principle.
3. Judicial Precedents
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
The Supreme Court recognized that the right to livelihood is part of Article 21.
Evicting slum dwellers without rehabilitation or prior notice violates fundamental rights.
Relevance: Large-scale demolitions in urban areas without planning violate this principle.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
Court emphasized speedy and fair processes for those deprived of liberty or homes.
Relevance: Displaced persons due to bulldozers deserve due process, notice, and rehabilitation.
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990)
Court held that private property rights must be balanced with public interest, but arbitrary action without notice is unconstitutional.
Relevance: Even if labelled as “encroachers,” residents must get a hearing before eviction.
Rajiv Ranjan v. State of Bihar (1995)
Court observed that large-scale displacement affecting fundamental rights must be accompanied by rehabilitation and proportionality.
Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Union of India (2001)
Observed that mass evictions or demolitions without due process violate constitutional morality and Article 21.
4. Key Principles Drawn
Scale of Displacement Matters
Small evictions may be justified; mass displacement beyond imagination triggers constitutional safeguards.
Notice and Hearing Are Mandatory
People cannot be labelled encroachers without opportunity to contest the claim.
Rehabilitation and Compensation
Courts insist on rehabilitation plans for displaced families.
Prohibition Against Arbitrary Bulldozing
Using bulldozers without legal procedure, notice, or proportionality is unconstitutional.
5. Summary Table
| Aspect | Requirement / Principle | Judicial Support | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to Shelter & Livelihood | Cannot destroy homes arbitrarily | Olga Tellis (1985) | Eviction without rehab violates Article 21 |
| Procedural Fairness | Notice & hearing mandatory | Shantistar Builders (1990) | Labeling as encroacher must be contestable |
| Proportionality | Mass action must be proportionate | Rajiv Ranjan (1995) | Avoid large-scale arbitrary displacement |
| Rehabilitation | Provide alternative housing or aid | Olga Tellis (1985) | Mitigates human suffering |
| Equality | Uniform application of law | Lallu Yeshwant Singh (2001) | Cannot target specific groups arbitrarily |
✅ Conclusion
Arbitrary and large-scale demolitions, labelling residents as encroachers, and deploying bulldozers without due process violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Courts have consistently emphasized notice, hearing, proportionality, and rehabilitation as constitutional safeguards.
Hence, mass displacement and punitive action against civilians without following these safeguards cannot be justified under the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments