SC slams Centre on row involving encroachers of Govt houses

The Centre's opposition to amending the criminal law to enable jailing those unauthorisedly occupying govt accommodation, evoked a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court which directed the Union Cabinet to reconsider the matter. "Take it seriously. We know how to deal with the matter. If you can't take a decision we can pass the direction," a three-judge bench of Justices B N Aggrawal, H S Bedi and G S Singhvi observed. The Government's plea that only a minuscule ".03 per cent of persons are defaulters" only further infuriated the bench. "The Government does not want to act because big bosses are involved. They will be affected and you don't want them to be jailed," Justice Aggrawal speaking for the bench observed. The apex court made it clear that it wanted the Government's answer only through "Union Cabinet"and not any "Secretary-level decision". The bench snubbed the Additional Solicitor General Amarander Saran who tried to reason that the Centre had after "due consideration" decided against amending Section 441 IPC (criminal trespass) to facilitate imprisonment of unauthorised occupants, including those who overstay in official flats or do not pay dues. During an earlier hearing, the apex court had asked the Union Government and the States to file affidavits on their views for invoking Section 441 IPC against those persons unauthorisedly occupying government accommodations. While several states had agreed to amend the Act suitably, the Centre in its affidavit asserted that the existing Public Premises Eviction Act was sufficient to take care of the unauthorised persons. But the affidavit angered the apex court which questioned the Centre for its reluctance to make the unauthorised occupation a penal offence. When the ASG during the hearing today tried to repeat his argument, the apex court warned that it would haul up those responsible for contempt. "We shall put them behind bars and haul them up for contempt," the bench retorted. The bench questioned Saran as to who had taken the "conscious decision"not to amend the Act as directed by the court. "Is it at the Cabinet level or Secretary level. When we directed the Union Government to do it it for the Union Cabinet to decide," the bench observed while listing the matter for further hearing in the second week of August.

"Loved reading this piece by SANJAY DIXIT?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group