R Arun Kumar
THESE days, not a single day goes by without the media reporting about the demolition of jhuggis (slums), by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Hundreds of homes are being razed across the capital. The reasons cited are all too familiar: the settlements are built on encroached land, are deemed unauthorised, and, on top of it, the courts have ordered their demolition. Whatever these unjustifiable reasons be, these actions are rendering thousands of people homeless and forcing them onto the streets without shelter.
There are two promises that all ruling parties consistently make: first, to provide housing for all; and second, to ensure that slum-dwellers are given housing at the same location where they currently live. Every political party that has been in power – whether it is the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which ran the Delhi government, or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which now governs both Delhi state and the Centre – had made the same promise: that no homes would be demolished. Their slogan was ‘Jahan jhuggi, wahan makaan’, meaning houses would be built where the slums currently stand. Yet all of them have failed to keep their word, and all must be held equally responsible.
Let us now examine the first promise – providing housing for all. The central government, led by the BJP, released a report marking 11 years in power, claiming that over 4 crore homes have been constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY) during this period. However, this assertion is not supported even by the government's own published data, let alone by the ground reality. According to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, as of October 7, 2024, under PMAY-Urban, 1.19 crore houses had been sanctioned, 1.15 crore houses had been grounded for construction, and only 87.12 lakh houses had been completed. Similarly, the Report on Trend & Progress of Housing in India 2024, published by the National Housing Bank, states that as of December 2024, only 1.87 crore houses had been constructed under PMAY-Grameen. When combined, the total number of houses constructed under both PMAY-Urban and PMAY-Grameen comes to just 2.74 crore – well short of the 4 crore figure claimed. Despite this clear discrepancy, the BJP continues to make inflated claims. The absurdity of the 4 crore figure becomes even more evident when we consider the original promises made at the launch of these schemes. When PMAY-Urban was introduced in 2015, the BJP government pledged to provide housing for all urban homeless by 2022 (later extended to 2025). Likewise, PMAY-Grameen, launched in 2016, aimed to house all rural homeless by 2024. Neither of these promises has been fulfilled. Nevertheless, the government has shown little hesitation in making exaggerated claims even when the promises are not kept.
The second failure of the government – both the Delhi state government and the central government – lies in their inability to fulfill the promise of ensuring in-situ rehabilitation. The primary reason for this failure is the high value of the land on which these slums have developed. Most jhuggis have emerged and expanded in central areas of the city. The demand for manual labour to clean, cook, drive, and perform other tasks for the affluent residents of these central zones initially led to a degree of tolerance towards the presence of slums alongside wealthy neighbourhoods. However, as land became one of the most valuable commodities and its market value soared, calls for slum eviction intensified. Freeing up land for real estate development and speculation has taken precedence over using it to shelter domestic workers. This need became even more urgent after the 2008 economic crisis, when land emerged as a key avenue for investment. These class interests shape the policies of their representative parties – whether the BJP or the Congress or the AAP.
The impact of these changing attitudes is evident both in policy decisions and judicial pronouncements. Adequate housing is recognised as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in Article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As a member of the United Nations, India is committed to the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. This implies that the Indian government also acknowledges the right to adequate housing as part of the broader right to life. It is this understanding that has led successive governments to promise housing for all. Promise they did, but sincere efforts to realise this promise have rarely been made.
The right to adequate housing does not mean a simple provision of a roof over the head. According to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it means: “protection against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of one’s home; the right to be free from arbitrary interference with one’s home, privacy and family; and the right to choose one’s residence, to determine where to live and to freedom of movement”. This right also entitles one to an ‘equal and non-discriminatory access to adequate housing’. Viewed in this manner, successive central governments and those that led the state of Delhi, have failed to guarantee this right to the people.
The UN outlines seven minimum criteria for defining adequate housing. One of these is the availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure. “Housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, energy for cooking, heating, lighting, food storage, or refuse disposal.” The other criteria include: security of tenure, affordability, habitability (protection against natural elements), accessibility (particularly for disadvantaged and marginalised groups), location (proximity to employment opportunities, healthcare, schools, etc), and cultural adequacy (the ability to express cultural identity through housing).
The Courts were also influenced by this understanding, which was reflected in several of their judgments. In 1981, the Supreme Court, in the case Francis Coralie vs. Union Territory of Delhi, stated: “We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow beings”.
In Chameli Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Supreme Court offered a more comprehensive interpretation of the right to shelter and adequate housing. It declared: “Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc., so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right… Want of decent residence therefore frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to residence, dignity of person and right to live itself.”
Thus, the Supreme Court has unequivocally affirmed that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution.
Following the lead of the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court too delivered several judgments upholding the right to adequate housing, even in 2010 (P.K. Koul and Others vs. Estate Officer and Another; and Sudama Singh and Others vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another). In the Sudama Singh judgment, the Court stated: “It cannot be expected that human beings in a jhuggi cluster will simply vanish if their homes are uprooted and their names effaced from government records. They are the citizens who help rest of the city to live a decent life they deserve protection and the respect of the rights to life and dignity which the Constitution guarantees them”.
Unfortunately, the sympathetic approach seen in earlier judgments is missing from more recent decisions of the Delhi High Court. In a judgment on petitions filed by residents of Madrasi Camp in Delhi, the Court stated: “None of the dwellers can claim any rights beyond the right of rehabilitation, as the land is public land which is encroached upon”. The Court directed that demolition be carried out from June1, 2025 and instructed residents to vacate the area by May 31.
In another judgment on petitions by residents of Bhoomiheen Camp, New Delhi, the High Court ruled: “There is no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation, as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves”. Further, the Court observed that allowing people to stay on government land ‘while their rehabilitation status is decided could delay important public projects’. It thus permitted the DDA to proceed with the demolition of the jhuggis.
Such inconsiderate judgments are often used by governments to clear slums without ensuring proper rehabilitation, let alone in-situ rehabilitation, thereby undermining the constitutional guarantees of dignity and shelter. Alongside the government’s failures, people are increasingly realising that the courts too are falling short in upholding their right to shelter and adequate housing. They are coming to the conclusion that they have no choice but to resist – to fight for their right to live a dignified life. The CPI(M), along with various mass organisations, is leading the people of Delhi in their struggle for the right to adequate housing.
or reload the browser
