[Mumbai building collapse] Right to livelihood includes right to live in safe buildings: Bombay High Court

Right to livelihood under Article 21 includes the right to live in safe buildings and houses, the Bombay High Court said on Saturday, a statement which came in light of building collapses in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra [High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Ors.]. .A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni stressed that instances of people losing lives due to building collapses need to be eradicated completely."People losing their lives in building collapses is required to be completely obliterated. Right to livelihood includes the right to live in safe buildings and houses. ...in these matters of dilapidated and ruinous buildings there is no scope whatsoever to accept the situation that the occupants live in uncertainty and risk their lives," the order underscored.The Bench observed that the whoever is the owner of the building, private or a public body, had a constitutional obligation to ensure safety of the building premises so that lives of the occupants is not endangered by a likely collapse.In its order passed on Saturday, the Court called for a putting in place a mechanism so that the concerned officers within their jurisdiction would enforce an audit of buildings as required by law and buildings that are notified as ruinous can be vacated so that lives are not lost in case of collapse of the building..The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) initiated suo motu to address the issue of dilapidated buildings and illegal constructions in Maharashtra.The Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the issue out of concern for human lives lost in building collapses. The Court had in June 2021 called for judicial inquiry into the Malad building collapse case, after it was convinced that the suo motu case failed to prompt the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials to take action against the culprits. The Bench opined that "strong arms of law" are required to punish the disorderly in order to save people from "unscruplous elements" indulging in illegal constructions.The Court disposed of the case on Saturday after passing a slew of directions and holding that all municipal corporations had all powers to take action against structures found to be unauthorised..In the order, the Bench emphasised that the reason for such illegal buildings coming up and people residing in them was the connivance between municipal and State officials. "It is for such reason and with a sense of concern for our fellow citizens we have impressed the important role of the municipal and the state officers in the scheme of appearing to be extra-ordinarily vigilant and prevent building collapses," the Bench said..The Bench pulled up municipal and public officials whose dereliction of official duties led to loss of innocent lives."In the scheme of constitutional governance, it is not possible for us to assume that a public official howsoever high or mighty or low, can remain without public accountability to people," the order stated."This would certainly require the Court to strictly deal with such officials as the law would mandate the Court to deal with them. They ought not to be under any impression that they can evade law with impunity," the Court held..In this regard, the Bench also pointed out that corruption in municipal governance should be brought to the book by strictly applying the Prevention of Corruption Act."It is only then that there can be a ray of hope and sunshine for the future generations," the Court remarked. "The famous quote of Lord Atkin "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - ought to be realised to be untrue and something of the past in its applicability in public governance," the order said..The Bench also highlighted how some buildings become dangerous within a year of its construction due to the inferior quality of the construction material or for other reasons."Experience has shown that there are buildings of recent origin which were constructed with sub-standard material and on account of such construction were hazardous for occupation and ultimately collapsed," the Bench noted.A comparatively new building becoming dangerous needs to be brought to the notice of the municipal authorities by all concerned including the occupants as this situations cannot remain hidden, the Bench directed. .[Read judgment]