The Bombay High Court has held that slum dwellers cannot claim a fundamental right to in-situ rehabilitation at the same location when the authorities provide suitable alternate accommodation in accordance with the applicable rehabilitation scheme.
The Court clarified that while the right to shelter may form part of the right to life under Article 21, this does not mean that a person has an absolute constitutional right to remain at a particular location or to demand rehabilitation at the same site.
Right To Shelter Does Not Mean Right To A Particular Location
The Court distinguished between the constitutional right to shelter and a claimed right to obtain permanent rehabilitation at the same place where a person has been residing.
The availability of alternate accommodation, if provided in accordance with the applicable rehabilitation policy, can satisfy the State’s obligation towards rehabilitation. A slum occupant therefore cannot insist that rehabilitation must necessarily take place on the original site.
Alternate Accommodation Can Be Offered
The Court recognised that rehabilitation policies are intended to balance the interests of eligible slum dwellers with the requirements of urban development and public planning.
Where eligible occupants are offered alternate accommodation, they cannot refuse to vacate merely on the ground that they should be rehabilitated at the original location.
No Absolute Fundamental Right To In-Situ Rehabilitation
The Court emphasised that the Constitution does not confer an unrestricted fundamental right upon slum dwellers to demand in-situ rehabilitation as opposed to alternate accommodation.
The right to life and shelter under Article 21 must be understood along with the statutory rehabilitation framework and the broader requirements of planned urban development.
Rehabilitation Must Still Follow The Law
The judgment does not mean that authorities can remove slum dwellers without following due process.
Where rehabilitation is required under the applicable scheme, the authorities must comply with the relevant statutory provisions and policy requirements and provide the benefits to which eligible occupants are entitled.
The ruling is therefore concerned specifically with the location of rehabilitation, and not with permitting arbitrary eviction without rehabilitation where rehabilitation is legally required.
Significance Of The Judgment
The ruling is significant because it:
- Clarifies that the right to shelter does not create an absolute right to remain at a particular location.
- Holds that there is no fundamental right to demand in-situ rehabilitation in every case.
- Recognises alternate accommodation as a possible means of fulfilling rehabilitation obligations.
- Balances the interests of slum dwellers with planned urban development.
- Clarifies that statutory rehabilitation rights must still be respected by the authorities.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling establishes that slum dwellers cannot insist upon rehabilitation at the same site merely by invoking the fundamental right to shelter, when lawful and adequate alternate accommodation is provided under the applicable rehabilitation framework.
At the same time, authorities remain bound to follow the prescribed legal procedure and rehabilitation requirements before taking action against eligible slum occupants.
