 In the last two weeks, we have seen and heard a lot of noise and criticism regarding the Supreme Court's order dated 31 August 2020 regarding the removal of 48,000 slum dwellings around Delhi rail tracks. Two applications were moved recently, one by a Delhi-based politician and another by a set of slum dwellers for recalling the said order. On several grounds, such as displacement of more than two lakh people as railway ministries own admission, then non-observants of the principles of natural justice as the court heard the demolishers to be meaning the government side but completely disregarded, ignored the aggrieved slum dweller population keeping in view that they have been living in the concerned slums for 30 to 40 years. The proposed eviction triggered by the order being in breach of COVID-19 stay at home guidelines as well as human rights conventions and laws. The order of 31 August was halted yesterday on 14 September by the Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India for four weeks. Predominantly on the premise that the Union of India made submissions stating that the Ministry of Railways, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and the Government of NCT of Delhi are going to take a decision on the issue raised in the said applications moved by these two sets of applicants for recalling the court's order of August 2020. Until then, the government will not take any coercive action against the slum dwellers. This four weeks relief came forward for the slum dwellers. According to me, a historical order was passed by the Supreme Court of India on 31 August 2020 in a repetition pending before it for more than three decades. Yes, it was historical order. Repetition filed way back in 1985 by MC Mehta, a renowned environmental protection legal activist, was listed for final hearing on 31 August before the Supreme Court. And it was definitely a historical movement in more than one way for more than one reason. As nearly 300 lawyers or perhaps more appeared before the court on that day through the video conference. The order of the Supreme Court actually records the presence of these 300 plus lawyers. In the said order, several directions were given in the interest of environmental protection but in this lecture and video talk, I have been requested specifically to focus on the directive of the Supreme Court relating to the removal of 48,000 slum dwellings around the Delhi rail tracks. So what are the key takeaways of the said order? Said order of 31 August 2020 of the Supreme Court, what are the key takeaways? Before proceeding to takeaways, I must point out that there is a huge unwarranted and uncalled for chorus against the Supreme Court, especially the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, which passed this order. This criticism is absolutely misplaced because we need to appreciate that the court of law or let us say generically the judiciary is not a technical body and the matters of public interest, more so those concerning environment protection are expected to be dealt with on the basis of information and data provided by the specialist and expert agencies. This order of the removal of 48,000 slum dwellings around the Delhi rail tracks was passed entirely on the basis of the feedback of central government constituted committee for the national capital region known as environment pollution prevention and control authority for the NCR in short EPCA and on the basis of affidavits filed by the Ministry of Railways Government of India. So one cannot blame the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra by any means. The Supreme Court actually noted that the picture painted in the report of the EPCA as well as the reply filed by the railways indicated that nothing has been done so far and waste is being piled up and at the same time you know around railway tracks causing not only hygiene issue but also safety hazards and that is not all there is human habitation which has come which has come which has come in the same area completely you know in an unauthorized manner which which requires to be taken care of. Now the the major takeaways from the said order according to me are taken from the affidavit of the Ministry of Railways and then the actual directives of the Supreme Court based thereof. Now Ministry of Railways stated in its affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that there are predominant presence of Juggis that is slum dwellings in Delhi along with 140 kilometer root length of track in the region of NCT of Delhi where the railway tracks take off in different directions. The affidavit further stated that out of this about 70 kilometer root length of track is affected by large Juggi Jhopri clusters existing in close vicinity of the tracks. Now these clusters sum up to a total of about 48,000 number of Juggis can you believe it 48,000 number of Juggis slum dwellings in the region adjacent to railway tracks that's horrendous I would say. Now second takeaway would be that as per the Ministry of Railways a special task force for removal of encroachments from the railway property has already been constituted by railway it is already in place. There seems to be some political intervention against removal of such encroachments which are coming in the way that is noted by the railways and in the order as well. Now there are certain encroachments which are within the safety zone of the railways. It is further stated in the affidavit that the railways have doubled the efforts towards maintaining the clean environment on tracks leading to Delhi and nearby tracks. The railways highlight that the added dimension requires manpower for the purpose and is to be met by the staff which is already handling the work of railway operations. So there is definitely shortage of staff and the same staff is being used for multitasking. Third takeaway the railways placed on record of the court the task of cleaning the tracks could be taken in a phased manner and with the cooperation of the statutory authorities like Delhi, Arban, Shelter Improvement Board, Corporations and the state governments. Now fourth takeaway according to me let me recollect is based on the effort of the railways and the submissions of the lawyers present the Supreme Court directed the execution of the set plan with respect to removal of the plastic bags, garbage etc. within a period of three months and a meeting of all the stakeholders that is very important and it directed meeting of all the stakeholders that is railways, government of NCT, of Delhi and concerned municipal corporations as well as Delhi, Arban, Shelter Improvement Trust within a week you know and you know work to be you know started forthwith. Fifth takeaway the Supreme Court also directed all the stakeholders that a comprehensive plan for removal of chuggies, slum dwellings should be made and executed in a phased manner. Very logical direction the court directed that all encroachments which are there in the safety zones should be removed within a period of three months and no interference the court said and no interference political or otherwise should be there and no court should grant any stay with respect to removal of the encroachments in the area in question. That was a strong direction given and it was required. The court did not stop there and went ahead to further direct that in case any interim order is granted with respect to encroachments which have been made along with alongside railway tracks those interim orders shall not be effective shall not be effective. So it took care of all future hurdles now the order of the Supreme Court is very clear that it is wanting to ensure and restore safety of those using railways and also people living you know around tracks in slums who are exposed to the risk of losing lives due to mishaps and you know also preserving their hygiene and good environment where did Supreme Court go wrong? I mean it is implied in the Supreme Court order that government would not render these slum dwellers homeless when they evict them there are already several judgments several judgments of the Supreme Court and high courts in place dealing with you know the issue of resettlement of the displaced slum dwellers yes. Hence criticism of the order dated 31st August 2020 is absolutely inappropriate and unjustified.