“Despite a stay till September 1 from the Delhi High Court, they came and destroyed my house,” said 19-year-old Krishna as he stood next to the rubble that was his home.
Krishna’s house was among the 200 jhuggis razed in the Delhi Development Authority’s demolition drive on Monday in North West Delhi’s Jailorwala Bagh JJ Cluster. It was also among two that were demolished despite a Delhi High Court stay against any such demolition until September 1.
The stay had been granted to at least 23 families who had approached the court on May 9, challenging conditions of the DDA rehabilitation policy which made them ineligible for rehabilitation. A total of 1,100 residents were allotted alternative flats in Jailorwala Bagh under the DDA’s in-situ slum rehabilitation project. The court, in the preliminary stage of the hearings, had found that the eligibility conditions were arbitrary. It had subsequently granted protection to these houses from demolition till the next hearing on September 1.
These families are now planning to file a contempt petition against DDA’s action. However, they will have to wait till June 30, when the Delhi High Court resumes after its summer break.
No roof, nowhere to go
Krishna’s father, Ramsurat, the sole breadwinner of his family of five, works in the Wazirpur Industrial Area, polishing steel utensils. Krishna had recently appeared for his Class 12 board exams and secured a data entry job. However, it’s uncertain whether he will be able to do it due to their current housing crisis.
“My wife needs surgery; she can barely move. Now our home is gone too. Where will we go? Rent is beyond our means. There’s no roof. Nothing,” Ramsurat said.
There are five members in the family: Ramsurat, his wife, their two sons, and one daughter, who is married and lives with her in-laws. After their house was demolished, the family had to rent a single room in the neighbouring Azadpur for Rs 6,000. They moved into that house after salvaging whatever they could recover from the rubble.
Rahul’s home was also among those demolished despite a stay. His family includes his wife, two young daughters, and one son. All three children are very young. A driver, he is the only earning member of my family.
“We've suffered a huge loss – our belongings, our shelter, and our dignity are all lost. Today, it’s raining, and we’re sitting right there, in what’s left of our broken house, trying to stay dry under a plastic sheet. We don’t know what to do or where to go now,” said Rahul.
Rahul also claimed that the DDA had earlier marked their house as ‘ST’, terming it safe from demolition. He claimed that three days before the demolition, the police came and said that people without a stay order should vacate their homes. “But I didn’t leave because I had a valid stay order from the court.”
“Inside, we had a fridge, a cooler, a bicycle for the kids, a bed, books, school copies, clothes – everything was crushed under the debris. We’ve only managed to retrieve a few items; most of it is still buried,” said Rahul.
‘Arbitrary’ rehabilitation policy
On May 9, 2025, Advocate Anupradha Singh filed a case for more than 23 families whose homes were under threat of demolition, challenging the rehabilitation policy under which the DDA was acting. The contested provisions were: If someone is living on the first floor, they must have a ration card in that address’s name. Their name must appear on the voter list between 2012 and 2015.
“We argued that these conditions in the policy were arbitrary and discriminatory. We received a stay order because the court found our arguments valid at this preliminary stage. Once the stay is granted, nobody is allowed to touch the homes until the matter is fully heard,” said Singh.
All of Singh’s clients were granted protection from the court against demolition. Singh said it was the DDA’s job to thoroughly check and confirm the legal status of each house. “If they still went ahead and demolished the homes, the entire accountability lies with them,” the advocate said.
Calling the demolition of such homes “a serious violation of the court's stay order”, Singh said that the residents will file a contempt of court petition after its summer break that ends on June 30.
In March 2020, the DDA and SPYM (Society for Promotion of Youth and Masses) conducted a survey of the slum cluster in Jailorwala Bagh as part of its in situ slum rehabilitation project. The timing was bad – residents were already leaving the city due to rising Covid infection rates, job losses, and curfews following the lockdown.
Locals claimed the DDA didn’t issue any public notice about the survey, nor hold any community meetings with the residents. However, the DDA stated that copies of the DUSIB Policy 2015 were distributed and public meetings were held.
Mithoon, a community representative assisting families in their legal struggles for shelter rights, said, “We have no idea who chaired these meetings. There are no pictures, no proof, nothing.”
His grandmother Kela Devi’s home was also demolished. She used to live alone in her Jailorwala Bagh house.
In total, SPYM surveyed 1,425 people, and the DDA’s Claims and Objection Redressal Committee surveyed another 220, bringing the total to 1,645. Those excluded were labelled “ineligible” and asked to appeal to the DDA’s Appellate Authority, which hears cases post-rejection. Out of 552 appeal applications, only 30-35 were approved, and when their files reached the DDA Vice Chairman, even that list was cut down – only 15 were finally cleared.
In 2023, Advocate Umesh Kumar filed a petition on behalf of more than 72 families whose homes were not surveyed in 2020 because they were not present at the time of the official survey and were left out of the rehabilitation process. What followed was a legal battle for more than two years.
The petition claimed two main grounds. The timing of the survey: The survey was conducted during the pandemic, a time when many residents, especially daily wage workers, had returned to their hometowns due to lack of work and lockdowns.
The other reason was an alleged violation of proper procedure. As per DDA’s policy, the concerned authorities were required to visit the jhuggi clusters multiple times to ensure that even those who were temporarily absent were accounted for. However, this procedure was not followed, the petition claimed.
The court was set to hear the matter on September 1. Kumar claimed the homes of his clients were razed despite the matter being subjudice.
Newslaundry has sent a questionnaire to DDA seeking their response. This article will be updated once it is responded to.
Reports like these take time and resources. Help us tell more stories that are in public interest. Subscribe today.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
