A Case of Lamphel Yaipha Leikai Eviction
— Misusing the Law and Failure of Justice —

Laishram Malem Mangal *

A displaced woman crying for help during a sit-in-protest on June 8 2011 - Pix: TSE

The Government has successfully executed eviction policies at Lamphel Yaipha Leikai. It appears that in the absence of legal interventions to such arbitrary and illegal eviction moves, the Government has misconceived that all its policies can be executed without any question of justifiability and reasonableness.

Eviction order in Eviction Case No. 3 of 2011 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West on 3rd June, 2011 following instructions from DC Imphal West under the Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1978 read with the Government of Manipur Secretariat, Local Self Government Department Notification No. 11/3/78 – LSP (UP) dated 31/03/1981 wherein the unauthorised occupants of Lamphel Yaipha Leikai were directed to vacate latest by evening of 5th June, 2011 failing which eviction will be carried out against the unauthorised occupants without further notice.

Some provisions of the Manipur Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1978 (MPPA, 1978) can be taken into account. Section 3 (ii) of the MPPA 1978 provides that satisfactory upon making an inquiry that the area under occupation is unauthorised occupation an eviction order can be made within three days from the date of such proclamation.

In the instant case, while the eviction order was formally issued on 3rd June, 2011 the same was not delivered or served upon till morning of 5th June, 2011 which was the last day of vacating the premises. This is insensible and non-sense. The MPP law has been flagrantly violated by the enforcing authorities of the eviction order. The fundamental judicial question herein is that even if the 17 or more families have been occupying the area illegally, they cannot be vacated illegally.

This is a core principle of justice which cannot be subdued by any human norm or it is a peremptory norm of jus cogens. The illegality of enforcing the eviction order is manifestly seen in the manner the eviction order was served and executed. The time given to vacate living premises is 12 hours time only. How can living premises be vacated in night time?

This is ridiculous on the part of the administration. Why was there a delay in serving the notice to the inhabitants of the area? Why the order was not delivered on the same day it was issued i.e. on 3rd June, 2011 itself? Was the delay deliberate on the part of the issuing authority? How can you say that I have an order for eviction so vacate the area within 12 hours or force would be used to enforce the orders?

The people are whatsoever the reasons of their residing in that area, also bonafide citizens of Manipur as the SDO, Lamphel, Works Minister and other Police officers are. They are also human beings and not animals. To vacate a living area within a 12 hours time is extremely arbitrary and nonsense.

Would the SDO vacate his/her living premises within 12 hours time by an order of the Government? Where has the rationality of the mind disappeared? When high ranking public officials disrespect defenceless people who are lowly situated, what sense is inculcated in the minds of the common people? Show of power and authority or threat to subdue!

What is the "public" in the Public Officer and Public Policy?

The notion of providing notice does not necessarily mean merely serving it for name sake only. Notice is provided so that sufficient time is given to the party who is affected or going to be affected to enable him/her to defend properly. Notice given without sufficient time to defend is not notice but it is dictating intimidation that if you fail to do as directed upon action befalls you. This is something alien to the administrative jurisprudence of providing notice.

The whole eviction procedure is devoid of any justiceship. The men of Justice in the Judiciary have failed to underscore this stark reality. The position of natural justice in administrative action is thus illustrated by one case among others. The Supreme Court in Sangram Singh versus Election Tribunal, Kotah (AIR 1995 SCC 425, 429, (1995) SCJ 431) stated "….our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect the lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them".

That the principles of natural justice in the instant case have been violated is crystal clear from the facts and circumstances leading finally to the eviction. The consequences that were meted out to the inhabitants of Lamphel Yaipha Leikai are shocking to the human heart and conscience. Families who have been forcefully evicted have to face innumerable challenges. They have found nowhere to relocate themselves in a better and safer place than the adjoining areas surrounded by overflowing water at Lamphel Yaipha Leikai.

Right to life does not mean mere animal existence. The Supreme Court in Shantisar Builders versus Narayanan Khimalal Totame (AIR 1990 SC 630) stated that right to life includes right to food, clothing, decent environment and reasonable accommodation to live in. What differentiates animal and human needs is that for animal it is the bare protection of the body while for a human being it has to be suitable accommodation which allows him/her to grow in all aspects – physical, mental and intellectual.

It means existence with humane conditions. The families at Lamphel Yaipha Leikai are living in an extremely inhumane condition. Given the unhygienic living conditions, right to health which is a necessary concomitant of the right to life is seriously threatened. These core rights of life of the families have been illegally deprived by the recent unauthorised and arbitrary eviction drive.

Water overflows their area of forced residence or refuge. Children at tender ages have to do homework and prepare for examination which was started just 10 days after the eviction drama. The eviction drive has seriously violated the Right to Education Act, 2009. The Right to Education Protection Authority, Manipur (REPA) in the absence of the Manipur State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has sufficient grounds to intervene and ensure that by providing appropriate arrangement education of the children in the evicted area continues unaffected.

The REPA has serious and clear statutory obligations to ensure that children between the age group of 6 to 14 years (Class I to VIII) enjoy education in the State without any kind of discrimination. What sort of psychological and physical consequences would have confronted to the young minds by the eviction drama should be best explained by the SDO, Lamphel and Works Minister, among others who were behind the eviction drama. Examination during displacement by our own Government is one such experience that would be shared by these children when they grow up. The survival question in the area hangs like death knell.

What the Public Health and Engineering Department, Manipur is doing till now is not understandable. Putting up for living in an area surrounded by overflowing water and bio-masses possess many challenges. The PHED should have distributed materials for safe living conditions. There are only 17 families as pointed out by the SDO, Lamphel in the eviction order. As such rehabilitation for 17 families is not a big problem. Rehabilitation and providing alternative hygienic humanly living conditions is a bounden obligation of the Government given the conditions under which these families are str-uggling for survival after they were forcefully evicted.

The judiciary has failed to intervene in the clear case of administrative miscarriage of justice. Newspapers have already carried out the arbitrary and unauthorised actions of the Government. That is sufficient to take cognizance and intervene in the clear case of the error in law and executive action. The judicial insensitivity has undermined the Constitutional mandate.

The veins of the judiciary needs to be injected with fresh creative bloods to activate judicial interventions in clear cases of administrative misusing law, shattering rule of law and violating basic rights of the common defenseless man. The failure of the men of Justice to uphold rule of law and constitutionalism in the face of arbitrary and whimsical Government actions has negated the relevance of the institution of Judiciary.