The Bombay High Court recently stated that homeless persons may be poor, but they are equal before the law while refusing to pass an order directing the eviction of footpath dwellers in South Mumbai.
A division bench of Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale was hearing an application filed in a suo motu (on its own motion) by the high court on the subject of unlicensed vendors and hawkers crowding the city’s footpaths and sidewalks.
The application was filed by the Bombay Bar Association(BBA), claiming that some people live and sleep on the footpaths and sidewalks near the Fountain area in south Mumbai.
They requested that action be taken against persons living here, in order for them to be removed. It was also stated that letters were sent to the city police and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) seeking action.
However, the bench asked the BBA what kind of judicial order could be issued in such instances. “Do you think the city should get rid of the poor? They are folks who have moved here from other cities in search of better possibilities. The problem of homeless people is a global one.”
“They (homeless people) are human beings as well. They may be impoverished or less fortunate, but they are still human beings, which puts them on the same level as everyone else in court,” stated Justice Patel.
Appearing for the Bombay Bar Association, Milind Sathe, urged that the footpath dwellers to be relocated to night shelters, which the bench stated could be considered by the BMC.
The division bench then sarcastically suggested that another answer could be to “Begin digging, and everyone will leave. No one is allowed to use the footpath at that time. No one can walk on it, no automobile can drive on it, and no one can live on it. The issue has been resolved. The construction then continues for several years. It is an ideal solution.”
Eventually, the bench declared that the issue highlighted in the application was separate from the hawkers and vendors’ concerns in the suo motu petition.
Following that, Sathe stated that the group would consider submitting a supplementary petition or engaging in Public Interest Litigation(PIL) on the matter of homeless people.
The court agreed and dismissed the application.
