1

ReEVICTION OF RAVINDRA SAROVAR RAIL-COLONY SQUATTERS

-Judicial Adventurism, Environment Protection, and the Fundamental Right to Shelter - Saurav Datta,

Preface The decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar2 and other subsequent cases have brought the right to a clean and pollution-free environment within the ambit of the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While such an approach is no doubt laudable, a critical situation arises when this right comes into a direct conflict with some of the other fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21, such as the right to shelter and the right to livelihood. At such junctures, the Constitution vests a duty on the Supreme Court, which is a sentinel on the quie vive, to adopt an approach which would ensure that environment protection does not trample the fundamental human rights of the citizens; rather, a harmonious stance is taken so as to safeguard the interests of not only the environment and natural surroundings of a city or town, but also those of its denizens.

The case of the squatters on the railway-tracks adjacent to the Ravindra Sarovar (also known as Dhakuria Lake) in South Kolkata is such a situation- where the issues of environment protection, development, and basic human rights such as shelter and livelihood have been at loggerheads. One would have expected the Courts- the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court of India to take a stance as mentioned above. Sadly, carried away a jaundiced view of the grandiloquent notions and ideals of judicial activism, the Courts have passed judgements which, more than being instruments of creating and maintaining a pollution-free environment, have resulted in untold misery and destitution for thousands of hapless citizens.

4th Year Student, The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. A.I.R. 1988 SC 2187 2 A.I.R. 1991 SC 420

2
INTRODUCTION

Ravindra Sarovar, also known as Dhakuria Lake, is one of the largest of water bodies in South Kolkata. Covering a land area of 77.62 hectares and water area of 3 hectares, it includes four islands, three childrens parks, a mosque which is situated in one of the islands, a safari park, a stadium, a public auditorium (Nazrul Mancha) and a number of private clubs for rowing, swimming, and aquatic sports, such as the Calcutta Rowing Club, the Calcutta Boating Club, and the Calcutta Swimming Club. Adjacent to it runs the railway tracks of the Sealdah Division of the Eastern Railway, from Ballygunge to Budge Budge Railway Station. Along these railway tracks, approximately one lakh people have been residing in slums or rail colonies for around two decades, most of them having settled therein along with their families as a result of being displaced by Partition, the 1971 Indo-Pak War, natural calamities in and around the districts of South 24- Parganas and Midnapore, and more importantly, in search of a livelihood and shelter in the metropolis of Kolkata. In this long stretch among numerous other slums, is the Gobindapur Rail Colony whose residents have been the subject of the ire of environmentalists lobbies, the Government of West Bengal, the Eastern Railway authorities, and the Courts.

The waters of the lake are used by almost 9,000 people every day- comprising everyone including the slum dwellers of Gobindapur Rail Colony, the daily-wage labourers coming from Budge- Budge, Garia and Patuli; the dwellers of neighbouring slums like those of Mudiali, Lankar Math, Jhallar Math, Kankulia, Purna Das Road, Panditiya; and the various Clubs adjacent to it. Reasons for use ranged from bathing, sanitation and washing to dumping of waste and garbage and immersion of idols during Durga Puja and other festivals.

The maintenance of the Lake is entrusted to the Kolkata Improvement Trust (KIT) which, like all other government-agencies, was very inefficient and lackadaisical in keeping it free from pollution. Earlier, there have been a number of agitations and demonstrations by various groups for proper maintenance of the Lake, all of which had been stonewalled by Governmental apathy.

Genesis and Synopsis of the Dispute

1)

In 1997, Subhash Dutta, Convenor of the Howrah Ganatantrik Nagarik Samity, along with

two other organisations, Paribesh Dushan Rodh Committee and Ravindra Sarovar Bachao Committee, filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) in the Calcutta High Court claiming that the squatters and slum-dwellers residing along the railway tracks and adjacent to the lake were polluting the lake waters, and seeking directions for concrete steps to be taken for putting an end to the large scale pollution which was occurring on a daily basis.

2)

In 1998, the Eastern Railway authorities had filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court,

alleging that the slum-dwellers had illegally encroached on Railway property and that their presence was causing grave difficulties to the Railways in maintaining its services such as running the trains at a proper speed, and posing dangers to Railway passengers as well as the squatters themselves. On these grounds, a plea for passing an eviction order against the squatters was made before the High Court, a plea which was granted by a Division bench of Justices Ranajit Mitra and Bhagabati Prosad Bannerjee.

3)

On 18.06.1999, a Division Bench of the High Court passed the following Orders:

The Government of West Bengal3 and Railway Administration are to provide sanitary facilities to the squatters and slum-dwellers as an interim measure. Costs of the project for providing sanitation facilities were to be borne by the State Government and the Union of India (through Railway Administration) on a 50-50 basis. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC)4, Eastern Railway authorities, and the State Government were to jointly ensure that no further infiltration of or encroachment on the area around the lake takes place.

After the completion of the project, the CMC should ensure the maintenance of proper sanitation facilities for the squatters.

Accordingly, an appraisal was done and the cost of the project was fixed at a total of Rs. 76 lakhs, which was to be borne equally by the Railways and the State Government. However, the Railway Administration was reluctant to take up its share of the responsibility, and again sought for eviction

3 4

Hereinafter State Government Now renamed Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)

4
of the squatters. A Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Justices A.K. Mathur and S.K. Mukherjee passed an Order directing eviction of the squatters by the last week of January, 2002.

4)

On 11.01.2002, local Trinamool Congress (TMC) MLA Sougata Roy filed a petition on

behalf of the Dhakuria-Tollygunge Railway Basti Sangram Samity in the Calcutta High Court, praying for a review of the above Order, and for granting more time to the slum-dwellers in case the eviction order was upheld. On 18.01.2002, a Division Bench of Justices T.K. Chatterjee and S.K. Mukherjee declined to quash the Order directing eviction, but extended the deadline to 30.04.2002. The slum-dwellers appealed against this order to the Supreme Court, and also put up a fierce resistance while that suit was pending and the Government and the Railway authorities tried to carry out the eviction process.

5)

On 17.04.2003, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices N.Santosh

Hegde and B.P. Singh passed an Order upholding the decisions of the High Court with regard to eviction, and held that the High Court was to direct for all necessary steps to be taken so that eviction could be carried out within a specified time-period. The salient points of the Judgement of the Supreme Court are mentioned as follows:

Since lawful orders regarding eviction had already been passed, the High Courts providing further facilities to the squatters and slum-dwellers in the form of sanitary facilities, etc. would allow them further impetus to disobey the Order for eviction.

The High Court should have rather directed the State Government to provide all necessary police help to the Railway Administration to evict the illegal squatters, especially because of the pollution they were causing as well as the threats and difficulties to the Railways and its passengers caused by the slums.

During the course of the pleadings, the slum-dwellers had given up their prayer for rehabilitation and resettlement and confined their pleadings to extension of the deadline for carrying out the eviction, so the concerned authorities were free to carry out eviction at the earliest within the specified deadline.

6)

In 2004, Subhash Dutta of Howrah Ganatantrik Nagarik Samity filed another PIL in the High

Court alleging that inspite of the Order of the Supreme Court as well as numerous Orders of the Calcutta High Court, no steps had been taken by the State Government to either stop the pollution or

5
evict the illegal encroachers. In its Order dated 9.12.2004, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Barin Ghosh and Alok Kumar Basu held that:

The eviction orders apply to all illegal encroachers on the railway tracks The Court was not concerned with the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement because the claim for the same was given up by the slum-dwellers before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Moreover, as regards the Central Government policy regarding eviction of slum-dwellers from public land nowhere did the policy state that public properties could not be recovered, forcefully, if needed, from illegal encroachers.

It was hoped that good sense would prevail on the squatters and they would voluntarily vacate the said land, as it would help them to stake a prior claim if any rehabilitation project was taken up in the future.

The State Government should provide all police and other logistic support to the Railway authorities to carry out eviction, and all available and necessary force is to be used to subdue any sort of interference with the Orders of the Court.

7)

On 11.04.05, on another petition being filed by the Railway authorities because the eviction

had still not been carried out, the High Court held: that though there were many agents who were polluting the lake, but the squatters on the railway tracks were the major cause of such pollution. Therefore, mass entry into the grounds adjoining the lake was prohibited, as was all bathing, washing, and other activities. Not more than one person would be allowed to enter the area which was to be surrounded by high boundary-walls and barbed- wire fences, and the police was directed to ensure that such orders were not violated. It was also held that apprehension about bloodshed, violence and large-scale law and order problems by the police and the State Government could not be regarded as a ground for permanent postponement of the eviction process. However, the Government was directed to take a humanitarian stance, and carry out the rehabilitation process in parts, the costs of which were to be shared by the Government, elected representatives of the people, as well as civil society. A direction was also given that if found to be polluting the lake, the adjoining Clubs were also to be appropriately proceeded against.

6
8) On 20.03.05, the squatters acknowledged before the High Court that their eviction from the

said land had become a fait accompli, and if any scheme for rehabilitation and resettlement was formulated, they were ready to contribute financially for their share of the expenses incurred.

9)

On 1.07.05, the High Court granted the State Government appropriate time to set up a

committee for formulating the rehabilitation scheme, having representatives from the Railway Administration, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Kolkata Improvement Trust, squatters and the State Government (preferably holding the rank of a Cabinet Minister). Two weeks time was granted to the Railway Administration to clarify whether it had surplus land to allot it for the rehabilitation scheme.5

10)

On 11.07.05 the Railway Board, with the approval of the Union Minister for Railways, had

issued a statement by R.P. Gupta, Advisor (Land & Amenities) that there was no land which could be allotted for rehabilitation purposes, and since rehabilitation and resettlement of evicted and displaced people was a subject included in the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the onus and responsibility of providing land for rehabilitation was totally on the State Government, and not on the Railway Board.

11)

On 15.07.05, the High Court held that it was really unfortunate that totally contradictory

statements were being made by the Railway Board and the Minister for Railways. The Minister had said before the Railway Standing Committee (which was a Parliamentary Committee) also that there was surplus land which could be spared. There should not and cannot be any contradictions between what the Minister says before different fora, and what the Railway Board states, because whatever statement the Minister makes is supposed to be the policy of the Railway Board and Railway Administration. Therefore, a period of seven more days was granted to the Railways to come clear on the issue.

12)

On 22.07.05, a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices V.R. Sirpurkar and

A.K. Ganguly passed an Order which drove the final nail in the slum-dwellers coffin. The Court, while giving a detailed history of the development of the dispute, as well as a summary of the various
5

This was done because on 16 April 2005 a local daily, The Telegraph had carried a statement by Laloo Prasad Yadav, the Union Minister for Railways, that the Railway Administration was prepared to allot some surplus land in its possession for resettling and rehabilitating the squatters; however, the Railway Board had stated that it did not have any land for this purpose.

7
Orders passed by the High Court from time to time, reiterated that since the prayer for rehabilitation had been given up by the squatters, and precious time has been wasted but no eviction has been carried out, the issue of rehabilitation and eviction cannot be linked together, and the squatters would have to vacate the said land. The eviction process was to start from 10th November, 2005 and must be completed within the end of the month of November, 2005. Moreover, judicial notice was taken of the Affidavits filed by the Railway Administration stating that there was no provision either in the Railways Act, or the Policies adopted by the Railway Board from time to time, which lay down that the Railways have any responsibility of resettling and rehabilitating people who had illegally encroached on Railway land, and therefore, the State Government cannot go on claiming that the Railway Administration should shoulder any burden in this regard. As regards the complaints of encroachment and pollution against the Clubs situated near the lake, the Court held that not all clubs are polluting the lake, and the KMDA (Kolkata Municipal Development Authority), KMC and KIT were directed to carry out inspections and determine whether any club has encroached upon the area of the lake and converted any part of the water-body into land, and whether any club was polluting and contaminating the lakes waters. The concerned authorities were directed to keep a strict vigil on the activities of the clubs, and given the liberty to take action against them in cases of violations of the Courts Order, but only after giving notice and the right of hearing to each club separately. Critique of the Courts Decisions

A perusal of the Orders of the Supreme Court and various Division Benches of the Calcutta High Court throws up the following issues which are of critical importance as far as Constitutional and environmental jurisprudence are concerned: 1. Whether the Orders of the Courts directing eviction of the squatters were valid in law, since the Petitioners in the PIL have repeatedly stated on record that they had only prayed for directions to stop the pollution of the lake, and had never prayed for eviction of the squatters and slum-dwellers? 2. Whether the eviction order passed against the inhabitants of Gobindapur Rail Colony only, while leaving the inhabitants of numerous other slums along the railway tracks is not bad in law because it demonstrates an attitude of extreme discrimination and arbitrariness?

8
3. Whether the Orders directing eviction were not bad in law since as per the directions of the Courts, concrete steps had already been taken to prevent even any potential method of pollution of the waters of the lake by the squatters? 4. Whether the Supreme Courts observation that providing facilities and benefits to the squatters would encourage them to defy the Orders for eviction is valid in law? 5. Whether the Courts observations that since the squatters had given up their claim for rehabilitation, there is no link between the Orders for eviction and the issue of rehabilitation, is sustainable in law? 6. Whether any order for eviction of the squatters could be passed without having in place a proper scheme for resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) of the displaced people?6 7. Whether the State Government and the Railway Administration can claim inability to provide any land for R&R, and continue shifting the responsibility for doing so to and from between each other?

The following paragraphs seek to answer the issues mentioned above:

1.

Although no prayer for eviction of the squatters was made in the PIL, it was mentioned and

alleged therein that they formed one of the foremost and major causes of the pollution of the lake. So the Courts had the power to give any direction it deemed fit to prevent pollution and contamination of the waters of Ravindra Sarovar. Moreover, there was nothing in the law to prevent the Railway Administration from claiming that the squatters and slum-dwellers should vacate the land along the railway tracks on which they had illegally encroached, because their presence was posing considerable difficulties and danger to railway passengers and to the Eastern Railway in carrying out its functions, such as running trains at an optimal speed. Also, the fact that the squatters had been living on the land which is the property of the Railways for more than two decades and possess valid Voter ID Cards and electricity connections from the CESC (Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation) does not in any way give them legal rights over the land on which they had illegally encroached.

A separate Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the squatters, praying for directions to formulate a rehabilitation scheme; the same is still pending at the time when the Final Order for eviction was passed by the Calcutta High Court directing eviction.

9
2. A glaring lacuna which is noticed in the Orders of the Courts is that directions for eviction

were passed against those living in the Govindapur Rail Colony only and not against those in the many other slums and squatter colonies which also lie on the banks of the lake. There seems to be no real apparent or real reason why the inhabitants of only that particular colony were targeted. In South Calcutta Hawkers Association v. Govt. of West Bengal7, a case involving the eviction of hawkers from pavements, it was held by the Calcutta High Court that no discrimination should be made between hawkers of different areas in the case of eviction; no favouritism can be shown because people have legitimate expectations that any action by the State would not be discriminatory or arbitrary, or involve any pick-and-choose policy. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan 8 Justice K. Ramaswamy,

3.

speaking for a Division Bench of the Supreme Court , while addressing the issue of whether the interference by the Courts protect the encroachers from ejectment and cause delay in the disposal of cases, and provides resultant rights accruing to the encroachers, held that the right to residence and shelter is to be regarded as one of the minimal human rights and a fundamental right; and that judicial review being a basic structure of the Constitution, every citizen has the fundamental right to approach the Courts for redressal of the perceived legal injury through the judicial process9. (emphasis supplied). According to this decision, the plea of the Railway Administration that the intervention of the Court would aid and add impetus to the encroachers to abuse the judicial process, is untenable in law. Therefore, the observation of the Supreme Court that the High Court ought not to give directions for providing sanitary facilities to the slum-dwellers, and instead should have directed the State Government for providing necessary police support to the Railway Administration for evicting the squatters, militates against settled position of law. On 11.04.05 the High Court had laid down stringent provisions and enforcement machinery to prevent pollution of the lake waters by the people, and such Orders had been complied with fully. In that event, the Orders for evicting the squatters become in fructuous, because the fact-situation and reasons for which such Orders were passed- that of preventing the local slum-dwellers and squatters form polluting the lake- ceased to exist.

7 8

AIR 1997 Cal 234, Para. 15(1) AIR 1997 SC 152 9 Ibid., para. 23

10
4. Issue of Rehabilitation and Resettlement

This issue forms the major bone of contention and grievance between the squatters, the Railway Administration, and the State Government, because the squatters and slum-dwellers had no objections to vacating the land along the railway tracks, provided, that they were all rehabilitated and resettled at an appropriate place.

Waiver of Fundamental Rights The Supreme Court has held that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to a reasonable accommodation to live in10, and the right to shelter11, including the necessary infrastructure to live with human dignity.12 Moreover, the majority decision in Basheshar Nath v. C.I.T.13 , which was referred to in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation14 and followed in Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India
15

have held that under no circumstances does the Constitution mandate a person to

waive his Fundamental Rights. Therefore, as per the settled legal position, even if the squatters had given up their prayer for rehabilitation, the Courts ought not to accept such an argument, for surrendering the demand for rehabilitation would tantamount to a waiver of the right to shelter and proper accommodation with human dignity- something which cannot be allowed within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Providing Land for Rehabilitation- whose Responsibility? In the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation case16 it was held that in case of eviction of encroachers and illegal squatters, the Municipal Corporation has a constitutional and statutory duty to provide means for resettlement and rehabilitation- if necessary, by acquiring land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Financial considerations and capacity of the Corporation should also be considered, but not allowed to act as a constraint in carrying out this duty. In Olga Tellis 17, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that even if there is a controversy between the encroachers and the State about the availability of vacant land, highest priority is to be accorded to resettlement and rehabilitation. Slums which have been in existence for a long time, say,

10 11

Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 S.C.C. 520 at 527 Gauri Shankar v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 349; Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 444 12 Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549; J.P. Ravidas v. Nav Yuvak Harijan Uthapan Society Ltd., (1996) 9 SCC 300 13 AIR 1959 SC 149 14 (1985) 3 SCC 545 at para. 28 15 (2000) 3 SCC 588 16 Supra. n. 8 at para. 30 17 Supra. n. 14 at para. 53

11
twenty years or more, and which have been improved and developed, will not be removed unless the encroached land is required for a public purpose, and in which case alternative sites for accommodation must be provided to them.18 Therefore, it is clear from the decisions in the abovementioned cases that the State Government or its agencies and instrumentalities such as the KIT or the KMC cannot on any ground claim inability or no responsibility for resettlement and rehabilitation of evicted persons. Moreover, since the Railways perform a public service, and have the Government exercising substantial financial and administrative control and authority over it, as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib19 and Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India20 , it would come under the ambit of other authorities in Article 12 of the Constitution, and hence, would be bound to ensure that its actions do not violate the Fundamental Rights of the people, and hence, it can also be deemed as having a constitutional duty to bear some responsibility for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the encroachers, so as not to violate their Fundamental Right to shelter and decent accommodation.

Rehabilitation before Eviction- whether essential? In South Calcutta Hawkers Association, the Calcutta High Court held that in devising any scheme for removing encroachments on public land, the human considerations of the encroachers must be kept in mind, and rehabilitation of such unfortunate people should be ensured.21 It was also held that though the State was not under an obligation to provide alternative accommodation before eviction, it is expected and desirable that the State being a welfare State should immediately formulate schemes and policies for resettlement and rehabilitation.22 In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation23, it was held that rehabilitation provisions before eviction cannot be directed as a universal rule, but is to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of every case. In K.Chandru v. State of Tamil Nadu24, the same Constitution Bench of the Supreme Couryt which decided Olga Tellis, held that an assurance given by the State Government that eviction would not be carried out without providing for alternative accommodation, would be binding on it.
18 19

Ibid., at para. 57 (1981) 1 SCC 722 at 737 20 (1981) 1 SCC 449 at 471 21 Supra. n. 7 at para. 15(15) 22 Ibid. at para 15(16) 23 Supra., n. 16 at para. 20 24 (1985) 3 SCC 536

12
The Central Government has formulated a housing programme for rural and urban slum dwellers, namely the Valmiki Ambedkar Awav Yojana (VAMBAY), and the slum-dwellers have appealed to the Supreme Court, praying that they be included in this scheme. That appeal is still pending, and with both the State Government and the Railway Administration shrugging of responsibility and claiming inability, the situation has become such that there are not even draft schemes, leave alone temporary areas, for the resettlement and rehabilitation of the slum-dwellers. If eviction is carried out without having even a proper plan on the drawing board, where would these thousands of people go till they are provided some succour by the Supreme Court? Also, being evicted without any provision for rehabilitation would scatter these people to far-off places, and they would be losing all their belongings and proof of identity- thus, if at all a scheme is put in place, there will be many claims for inclusion into the scheme, most of which would usually be false. Having a census of the slumdwellers before the eviction, which has already been completed, would then be of no help at all. Therefore, it is evident that both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court had totally ignored the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, as well as the ground realities while holding that eviction was to be carried out at the earliest and at any cost, irrespective of the fact whether any schemes for resettlement and rehabilitation have been formulated or not.

5.

Conflicting Human Rights: Environment versus Shelter and Livelihood

Both the Supreme Court as well as the Calcutta High Court have, in the enthusiasm for earning kudos as the saviours of the environment and guardians of the development process, ruthlessly ignored the slum-dwellers Fundamental Right to shelter and livelihood. This is a very pertinent illustration of a situation where the judiciary adopts the wholly erroneous approach of giving one Fundamental Right total primacy at the cost of other such rights.

The Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, especially the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21, are nothing but a combination of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights- which have for long been accorded the status of human rights accruing to all the people of the world. The basic tenets of all human rights doctrines, as well as numerous international Treaties and Conventions lay down that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated; that they derive from the dignity and worth inherent in the human person; that the human person is the central subject of human rights and fundamental freedoms and consequently

13
should be the principal beneficiary; and that the human person should participate actively in the realization of these rights and freedoms.25 The right to development26 has also been recognized as an inalienable human right, and was reaffirmed in the 1993 Vienna Declaration of the World Conference on Human Rights as a universal and inalienable right and integral part of fundamental human rights, and declared that while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development cannot be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights. (emphasis added.) Part I of the 1994 Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment of the United Nations affirms in Part I: 1. Human rights, an ecologically sound environment, sustainable development and peace are interdependent and indivisible. 2. All persons have the right to a secure, healthy and ecologically sound environment. This right and other human rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, are universal, interdependent and indivisible. 3. All persons shall be free from any form of discrimination in regard to actions and decisions that affect the environment. Therefore it is by now clear that no fundamental right can override another, especially in the name of promoting development. India is a developing nation, and there is no doubt that in the near future more and more of such situations would arise- where the judiciary would be faced with the onerous task of striking an equal and fine balance between the conflicting needs of development, environment protection, and fundamental human rights. In such situations, it would be worthwhile to seek guidance from the principles enshrined in international human rights doctrines and laws27, because jurisprudence in this field in India is not even in its infancy.

25 26

Preamble, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (VDPA), 1993 of the World Conference on Human Rights Adopted as Resolution 41/128 of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 4 December 1986. 27 This can be done under the Constitutional mandate of Article 51 (c) which states that: The State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another. The Supreme Court has held that by virtue of this provision, international instruments, particularly those to which India is a party, become part of Indian law so long as they are not inconsistent with it. Therefore, they can be very well relied upon and enforced. See generally: Visaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241; Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. Union of India, (1999) 1 SCC 759.

14

CONCLUSION
As is amply evident from the contents of the preceding pages, the PIL for protection of Ravindra Sarovar ultimately sowed the seeds for a long-drawn, acrimonious, no-holds-barred legal and political battle between the Railway Administration and the slum-dwellers, amidst which the ostensible cause of environmental protection got a quiet burial. Added to this was the overenthusiastic, erroneous and biased attitude of the judiciary, which, with all due respect to Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India and the Calcutta High Court, encouraged it to champion the cause of development, modernisation and beautification of cities at the exorbitant cost of the lives, livelihood and shelter of thousands of helpless, poverty-stricken, innocent people.

Constitutional provisions, established principles of law and considerations for human rights made way for governmental apathy, bureaucratic blamegames, murky and shamelessly opportunistic political manoeuvring and hollow rhetoric. And the brunt of all these was borne by the people, who were reduced to mere pawns in the game between the Government, Railways and environmentalists lobby.

It is high time the judiciary took stock of the situation and lived up to the legitimate expectations of the people- as the supreme and impartial guarantor of Fundamental Rights and Constitutional principles and values. It should not lose sense of its focus and onerous duty by being dazzled by the sensation of judicial adventurism. Donning the role of a radical, an activist, is certainly very commendable in the face of the galling apathy and lackadaisical attitude of the State, but the judiciary cannot, and should not allow such a maverick stance to get the better of it, and erode the reverence and confidence it commended from Indias citizens. It would not be too nave to expect the judges to use their exalted and revered positions for putting a rude, timely and strong halt to the blatant abuse of the powerful weapon known as the PIL, which nowadays, sadly, stands more for Publicity Interest Litigation, or Paisa Income Litigation, than Public Interest Litigation.

15
It would also not be unreasonable to expect the judiciary to ensure that our precious Nature, with its flora, fauna, and all other manifestations, does not succumb to the onslaughts of rampant, ruthless and unsustainable development and globalisation juggernaut.