The Delhi High Court has held that forced and unannounced eviction of slum dwellers without drawing up a rehabilitation plan, is contrary to law..The Court has iterated that the slum dwellers are not to be seen as encroachers or illegal occupants of public or private land. The appropriate agencies, instead, need to first determine if the dwellers who are being evicted are eligible for rehabilitation in terms of law and policy, the Court stated..Discouraging the narrow view that slum dwellers are illegal occupants without rights, the Court laid stress on their Right to Adequate Housing..“Right to housing is a bundle of rights not limited to a bare shelter over one‘s head. It includes the right to livelihood, right to health, right to education and right to food, including right to clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities…Right to housing is a right to access several facets that preserve the capability of a person to enjoy the freedom to live in the city. They recognise such persons as rights bearers whose full panoply of constitutional guarantees require recognition, protection and enforcement.”.The Court further held that the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, which lays down a framework for the authorities to follow in cases of eviction of slum dwellers, would equally apply to slums, in the NCT of Delhi, which are situated on the land belonging to the Central Government..The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justices S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru in pleas seeking reliefs in relation to the forced eviction of around 5000 dwellers of jhuggi jhopri basti near the Madipur Metro Station in Delhi in December 2015. The land on which the slum was located, belonged to the Railways..Before the High Court, the Petitioners had argued that the statutory authority under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (DUSIB) as well as the Delhi Government had been unable to provide the displaced persons with adequate relief and rehabilitation. It was also pointed out that the demolition took place in complete violation of various judgments of the Supreme Court, Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021..The Railways, on the other hand, submitted that it undertook periodical anti-encroachment drives and that ample opportunities were given to the encroachers to vacate the Railway land by posting such notices in advance. Railways, however, conceded that no survey was ever conducted of the Jhuggi dwellers at Shakur Basti before the demolition..It also disputed the applicability of the DUSIB and the Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 to it as the land belonged to the Central Government..Rejecting the contention, the Court held that slum dwellers in the NCT of Delhi in one area cannot be treated differently from those in another. It, therefore, held that DUSIB and Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 would apply to Central Government as well..While analyzing the issue at hand, the Court considered the legal regime, both international and domestic, in relation to the right to adequate housing and the right against forced evictions. It observed that the obligations under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were enforceable in India..It thus stated that all ministries and local authorities under the Central and the State Government must reconcile their related policies with this obligation, which includes legal procedures seeking compensation following an illegal eviction..The Court also took inspiration from the jurisprudence developed by the South African Constitutional Court around the right to adequate housing..“The principles evolved in the above decisions of the South African Constitutional Court provide useful guidance to Courts on developing the jurisprudence around the right to adequate housing.. It explained that the model of judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights was premised on ―negative constitutionalism‖ i.e. ensuring that the actions of the State do not interfere with people‘s liberties.”.“The other important facet is the emphasis placed by the Constitutional Court on deliberative democratic practices through the device of meaningful engagement‘ with the affected groups. In this model, the Court becomes both a democratic space where such dialogue can take place and also the Constitutional authority that facilitates it.“, it added..While considering the policy for rehabilitation of slum dwellers, the Court also examined the ‘Right to the City‘ as explained by scholar Upendra Baxi..“In the context of the right to shelter and its sub-species, the right to adequate housing, it is necessary to acknowledge that there is increasing recognition in the international sphere of what is termed as the right to the city.“.The concept views “city as a common good” and acknowledges that those living in slums continue to contribute to the social and economic life of a city..“Prioritising the housing needs of such population should be imperative for a state committed to social welfare and to its obligations flowing from the ICESCR and the Indian Constitution. The RTTC is an extension and an elaboration of the core elements of the right to shelter and helps understand the broad contours of that right.”.The concept was also incorporated in the Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015, it stated. Therefore, in view of the positive stand of the Respondents on the need to first complete a survey and consult the slum dwellers in terms of the DUSIB and the Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015, the Court recorded that there was “no imminent possibility of eviction” in the present case. It nonetheless recorded that unless it is possible to rehabilitate the slum dwellers upon eviction, the eviction itself cannot commence..It thus directed,.“If no in situ rehabilitation is feasible, then as and when the Respondents are in a position to rehabilitate the eligible dwellers of the JJ basti and jhuggis in Shakur Basti elsewhere, adequate time will be given to such dwellers to make arrangements to move to the relocation site. The right of the JJ dwellers to raise objections to the 2015 Policy and the Protocol and to seek legal redress at the appropriate stage, if the occasion so arises, is reserved.“.Petitioner Ajay Maken was represented by Advocates Aman Panwar, S Kumar, Mudit Gupta, Nitin Saluja and Sangam Kumar..The other Petitioners who were slum dwellers were represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocate Anupradha Singh..The Railways was represented by ASG Pinky Anand with Advocates Jagjit Singh, Om Prakash and Snigdha Mehra..Delhi Government was represented by ASC Sanjay Ghose..DUSIB was represented by Advocate Ravinder Chauhan..Read the Judgement below. .Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The Delhi High Court has held that forced and unannounced eviction of slum dwellers without drawing up a rehabilitation plan, is contrary to law..The Court has iterated that the slum dwellers are not to be seen as encroachers or illegal occupants of public or private land. The appropriate agencies, instead, need to first determine if the dwellers who are being evicted are eligible for rehabilitation in terms of law and policy, the Court stated..Discouraging the narrow view that slum dwellers are illegal occupants without rights, the Court laid stress on their Right to Adequate Housing..“Right to housing is a bundle of rights not limited to a bare shelter over one‘s head. It includes the right to livelihood, right to health, right to education and right to food, including right to clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities…Right to housing is a right to access several facets that preserve the capability of a person to enjoy the freedom to live in the city. They recognise such persons as rights bearers whose full panoply of constitutional guarantees require recognition, protection and enforcement.”.The Court further held that the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, which lays down a framework for the authorities to follow in cases of eviction of slum dwellers, would equally apply to slums, in the NCT of Delhi, which are situated on the land belonging to the Central Government..The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justices S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru in pleas seeking reliefs in relation to the forced eviction of around 5000 dwellers of jhuggi jhopri basti near the Madipur Metro Station in Delhi in December 2015. The land on which the slum was located, belonged to the Railways..Before the High Court, the Petitioners had argued that the statutory authority under the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (DUSIB) as well as the Delhi Government had been unable to provide the displaced persons with adequate relief and rehabilitation. It was also pointed out that the demolition took place in complete violation of various judgments of the Supreme Court, Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 and the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021..The Railways, on the other hand, submitted that it undertook periodical anti-encroachment drives and that ample opportunities were given to the encroachers to vacate the Railway land by posting such notices in advance. Railways, however, conceded that no survey was ever conducted of the Jhuggi dwellers at Shakur Basti before the demolition..It also disputed the applicability of the DUSIB and the Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 to it as the land belonged to the Central Government..Rejecting the contention, the Court held that slum dwellers in the NCT of Delhi in one area cannot be treated differently from those in another. It, therefore, held that DUSIB and Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015 would apply to Central Government as well..While analyzing the issue at hand, the Court considered the legal regime, both international and domestic, in relation to the right to adequate housing and the right against forced evictions. It observed that the obligations under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were enforceable in India..It thus stated that all ministries and local authorities under the Central and the State Government must reconcile their related policies with this obligation, which includes legal procedures seeking compensation following an illegal eviction..The Court also took inspiration from the jurisprudence developed by the South African Constitutional Court around the right to adequate housing..“The principles evolved in the above decisions of the South African Constitutional Court provide useful guidance to Courts on developing the jurisprudence around the right to adequate housing.. It explained that the model of judicial enforcement of socio-economic rights was premised on ―negative constitutionalism‖ i.e. ensuring that the actions of the State do not interfere with people‘s liberties.”.“The other important facet is the emphasis placed by the Constitutional Court on deliberative democratic practices through the device of meaningful engagement‘ with the affected groups. In this model, the Court becomes both a democratic space where such dialogue can take place and also the Constitutional authority that facilitates it.“, it added..While considering the policy for rehabilitation of slum dwellers, the Court also examined the ‘Right to the City‘ as explained by scholar Upendra Baxi..“In the context of the right to shelter and its sub-species, the right to adequate housing, it is necessary to acknowledge that there is increasing recognition in the international sphere of what is termed as the right to the city.“.The concept views “city as a common good” and acknowledges that those living in slums continue to contribute to the social and economic life of a city..“Prioritising the housing needs of such population should be imperative for a state committed to social welfare and to its obligations flowing from the ICESCR and the Indian Constitution. The RTTC is an extension and an elaboration of the core elements of the right to shelter and helps understand the broad contours of that right.”.The concept was also incorporated in the Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015, it stated. Therefore, in view of the positive stand of the Respondents on the need to first complete a survey and consult the slum dwellers in terms of the DUSIB and the Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015, the Court recorded that there was “no imminent possibility of eviction” in the present case. It nonetheless recorded that unless it is possible to rehabilitate the slum dwellers upon eviction, the eviction itself cannot commence..It thus directed,.“If no in situ rehabilitation is feasible, then as and when the Respondents are in a position to rehabilitate the eligible dwellers of the JJ basti and jhuggis in Shakur Basti elsewhere, adequate time will be given to such dwellers to make arrangements to move to the relocation site. The right of the JJ dwellers to raise objections to the 2015 Policy and the Protocol and to seek legal redress at the appropriate stage, if the occasion so arises, is reserved.“.Petitioner Ajay Maken was represented by Advocates Aman Panwar, S Kumar, Mudit Gupta, Nitin Saluja and Sangam Kumar..The other Petitioners who were slum dwellers were represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocate Anupradha Singh..The Railways was represented by ASG Pinky Anand with Advocates Jagjit Singh, Om Prakash and Snigdha Mehra..Delhi Government was represented by ASC Sanjay Ghose..DUSIB was represented by Advocate Ravinder Chauhan..Read the Judgement below. .Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
