Mathews J Nedumpara
2nd June 2026
- The title is undoubtedly sweeping and harsh. But in all humility, I believe I could not have expressed my anguish over the manner in which the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court have dealt with the plea of slumdwellers protected under the Slum Act were treated.
2.The bare facts are that the Petitioners in WP (L) no 18105/2026 before the Bombay High Court are in occupation of the shanties set up in the Bandra railway station at least since 1995. A statutory eligibility document, namely, Annexure II to the Garib Nagar Bandra East, prepared by the Bandra Slum Authority discloses that Petitioner no. 1, one Mr. Khan at serial no. 231 has been in occupation prior to 1995. The Elector’s Photo Identity Card produced by Mr. Khan was produced as proof. The Petitioner no. 2, Mr. Sheikh also has given similar proof and has been accepted as a protected tenant (in occupation prior to 1995).
3.However, the
Western Railway, as part of the 5-day demolition drive reduced their shanties to rubble. The Railways in like manner demolished the shanties of hundreds of slumdwellers who are protected occupants in terms of the Slum Act. They approached the High Court immediately on coming to know of the demolition drive. They moved a praecipe for urgent hearing on 22.5.2026 in the morning pleading that their shanties would be demolished either on the same day or in a day or two. They sought for the matter to be heard at 3pm (production board). The Hon’ble Court declined but agreed to list the matter on 25th May. However, when the list of cases that were listed was published, it showed that plea for circulation was rejected. The denial of circulation led to the demolition of their shanties, so too that of hundreds of others, that too in the middle of the harsh summer. Their personal belongings including the books of their school going children were all destroyed.
4.The refusal of the High Court to even list their case for hearing in the face of the very roof over their head being demolished is a gross violation of their fundamental right to life.
- They rushed to the Supreme Court invoking Article 32, believing the words of Dr. B.R Ambedkar that Article 32 is the very heart and soul of our Constitution. The case was listed before a 3-judge bench headed by Justice Dipankar Dutta.
6.The Court failed to appreciate the fact that they had come to the Supreme Court because the High Court has shut its doors in their face only because they are poor in the face of their very homes, the little roof over their heads, being demolished.
7.They are not illegal slumdwellers. They are protected occupants whose entitlement was recognized by the authorities. Their shanties can be demolished. The Railways can secure back the plot which the slumdwellers were occupying. The law permits it. But that cannot be done without providing them alternative accommodation. Even if they are assumed to not be ‘protected tenants, they still are human beings, ‘little Indians’ to borrow an expression from the legendary Krishna Iyer.
8.Can people be blamed for saying that the Supreme Court does not have time to hear the poor, the common litigants and that it has all the time to hear a few select lawyers on fancy non-issues. The Sabarimala hearing alone took 16 days. A 9-judge bench was constituted to hear an issue where there were no real aggrieved party, dismantling 5 courts which would have heard hundreds of cases like that of the slumdwellers.
9.I can only hope that the Court will introspect and correct itself, for what is at stake is the very lives and livelihood of poor people. We have a duty in helping them in whatever manner possible.