People Living In Slums Or Informal Settlements Are Protected By Constitution: Bombay HC
Issue: Protection of Slum Dwellers or Informal Settlements
The core issue is whether residents of slums or informal settlements—who often occupy land without formal legal title—have constitutional protection, especially against eviction or demolition, and how courts balance the right to shelter with urban development.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 guarantees the right to life, which the Supreme Court and High Courts have interpreted to include the right to shelter.
Demolition of homes without adequate notice or alternative housing can violate Article 21.
Article 14 – Right to Equality
Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
Arbitrary eviction of slum dwellers without due process or differentiating between citizens in similar situations can violate Article 14.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), Article 39(e) & (f), 46
Though not enforceable, DPSPs guide the state to protect vulnerable sections and ensure dignity, livelihood, and equitable development.
Key Principles Established by Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has consistently emphasized:
Protection Against Arbitrary Eviction
Residents of slums cannot be evicted merely because they do not have legal ownership of land.
Courts insist on due process, including notice, hearing, and rehabilitation options.
Right to Shelter as Part of Right to Life
Slum dwellers’ right to basic shelter is protected under Article 21.
Eviction without alternative housing can violate constitutional protections.
Balancing Development and Human Rights
The state may redevelop or clear slums for public projects, but must ensure humane treatment, relocation, or resettlement.
Courts reject a strict “no legal title → eviction” approach, emphasizing social justice.
Illustrative Case Law
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Though a Supreme Court case, often cited by Bombay HC:
Held that right to livelihood and shelter are integral to Article 21.
Eviction without giving adequate alternative accommodation violates fundamental rights.
Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520
Even when the land is private, courts emphasized fair notice, hearing, and opportunity to rehabilitate for slum dwellers.
Bombay HC Guidelines on Slum Evictions
Bombay High Court has consistently laid down that authorities cannot demolish slums without providing alternative accommodation, especially to economically weaker sections.
Slum dwellers must be given sufficient notice, rehabilitation plans, and the right to appeal.
Practical Implications for Exams
Key Points to Remember:
Right to shelter = Part of Article 21.
Eviction of slum dwellers without notice/rehabilitation = Violation of Article 21 + Article 14.
State must balance development with human dignity.
Sample Exam Answer Structure:
Introduction: State the issue of constitutional protection for slum dwellers.
Constitutional Provisions: Article 21, Article 14, DPSP guidance.
Bombay HC Position: Eviction requires due process; right to shelter protected.
Case Law: Olga Tellis, Shantistar Builders, HC guidelines on slum evictions.
Conclusion: Slum dwellers enjoy constitutional protection; eviction must be humane and follow due process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments