Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | India must confront its migrant/refugee crisis with compassion, not force

CHENNAI: India must confront its migrant/refugee crisis with compassion, not force

When I read the news of a pregnant West Bengal woman wrongly deported to Bangladesh — denied her Indian citizenship and left languishing in a prison there — it shook me deeply. I felt it could happen to anyone. Six migrant construction workers from West Bengal were also arrested in Delhi, transported to Assam, and pushed across the border, only to be detained by the Border Guard Bangladesh. Although the Calcutta High Court’s intervention brings some relief, the fact that people can be forcibly removed from their own country is deeply worrying.

Does the new set of laws empower authorities to deport a person from their own country without granting them due process to challenge it? What happens if the pregnant West Bengal woman gives birth in a Bangladeshi prison — can the child be termed Indian?

— M Marthandan, Teynampet, Chennai

The fundamental question here is not merely about citizenship — it is about our human approach to refugees and migrants. India has yet to sign the UN Convention on Refugees, which lays down principles for humane treatment and protection. Even if a person is not a citizen of India, should we not uphold a humanitarian approach toward those in distress?

Only the other day, a Supreme Court bench remarked that “India is not Dharmasthala to keep everyone.” Yet they seemed to forget that in Dharmasthala (Himachal Pradesh), we have provided refuge to Tibetans for over eight decades, allowing them to run their own government and even a judicial system in exile.

Brutal treatment of human beings by armed forces was never contemplated in our Constitution, which guarantees justice — social, economic, and political — to all. The spirit of the Constitution demands compassion, not cruelty, especially toward the vulnerable who fall through the cracks of citizenship and bureaucracy.

Redevelopment rights strengthened: Majority owners can now decide on old buildings

Ours is a three-storey, 40-year-old building with 42 flats. It is extremely dilapidated. Despite our continuous efforts for the past three years, four owners are refusing to agree to redevelopment.

Can we proceed through the two-thirds majority route and appeal to the Urban Development Board for demolition of the building at the earliest? One owner claims that the Government has only framed the Act but not the Rules, and therefore, we must approach the Court through a lawyer for demolition.

I am confused. Your kind advice is requested.

— VS Narayanaswamy

I think you have been persistently raising the issue of redevelopment and the resistance of a few house owners. By now, you must be relieved to know that the rules have been changed, allowing the majority of owners to move forward with the redevelopment of old apartment complexes.

However, you will have to wait for the necessary Rules to be officially framed and notified before invoking the new provisions for redevelopment through majority consent.

As far as demolition of unsafe or dilapidated buildings is concerned, the existing municipal laws already empower the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) or local civic bodies to take action. If the structure is proven unsafe or a public health hazard, it can be demolished by the authorities without requiring the consent of all owners.