When the law looks the other way
We find no ground whatsoever to modify our order dated September 29, 2006 (sealing of unauthorized shops)
Thus spake a supreme court bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal while dismissing the applications filed by MCD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi), Delhi government and the center.
Sure enough our Supreme Court has better things to attend to than consider what will happen to more than 44,000 traders, their families and everyone else who is directly or indirectly employed by them. Assuming that a shop directly employs just 3 people (a very conservative estimate) and each person has a family of 2 (again very conservative), that’s just about 265 thousand people who will be adversely affected by this judgment. Oh! Just about 0.25% percent of the population. Of course, the fact that a quarter percent of the population will be adversely affected is no grounds for our honorable supreme court to change it opinion.
Praveen Khandelwal, Secretary General of the Confederation of All India Traders asks “If I shut my shop, will the Supreme Court or government take care of our livelihood?” Frankly, I don’t know; but I am sure that Justice Y K Sabharwal can answer that. Will you answer that Justice Sabharwal?
Update01: IBN tells me “5.4 lakh shops across Delhi face closure, 27 lakh traders have their livelihoods at risk”. Thats much higher than what I had thought. Still no one (the parliament, the executive or the judiciary) seems to be concerned – ah, the sad fact of our democracy.
Posted under: Thoughts
Tagged with: Delhi, supreme court, traders, unauthorized shops
November 6th, 2006 at 23:41:30
Question why these traders made illegals shops on very first place. You cant assume that government can make illegal thing legal just because no one stopped you when you were making illegal structure. Illegal is illegal dont defend them.
November 7th, 2006 at 00:10:18
Ekawaaz, yes its illegal. But there is a humanitarian aspect in this as well. Can you tell me what will all the affected people do? Let’s fact it, they need to have some way of earning an income and surviving in this world as well. And when around 40-50 thousand traders (their families, people employed by these traders and their families) are in question, we are looking at pretty huge number of people who will be rendered jobless and without any support. While I would again agree with you that the shops in residential areas are illagal, my question is what about their survival?
November 9th, 2006 at 03:59:52
Dear Sajith
Sajith I do understand the sufering of people. Government should issue some sort of job support to them, but legalizing the illegal things is not solution of this mess. Second if we see from point of law as you mentioned in your post, then law dont see religion, cast, creed, rich or poor while providing justice. We need to protet our legal system if we realy want to become super power one day. Some time you have to take hard decision, and I am sure every does take hard decision but what matter most how each person impliment his/her hard decisions. So if court says its illegal then government shouldnt interfear and make new law just to legalize the things. They should look after the families effected by this crisis and make some law to support these families.
November 13th, 2006 at 15:53:46
Sajith, for a beginning to be made towards sorting urban chaos, someone has to lose. One dose of pain today will make for a million happy things 20 years later.
Courts have the job of interpreting the law. And since the Govt is partly responsible for the mess, it has the onus for thinking creative solutions here. But a downright ‘pardon’ isn’t creative anymore. This circle of “why me first, why not them” has to stop someday somewhere.