Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The Petitioner submits that Right to Shelter is part of Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That eviction of the petitioners without providing any area to even put up the slums would completely violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

25.Right to Shelter and adequate housing is recognized as a basic Human Right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Under the Constitution of India the preamble highlights the guarantee of Social Justice, and of the right to dignity. A collective reading of the provisions relating to Equality, the freedom of movement, of residence anywhere in the country (Art­ 19(1)(e), and the freedom to carry on ones trade or profession read with Art­ 21 impliedly invalidates the denial of the rights of the underprivileged to the basic survival rights. It also enjoins the State to not adopt measures that would deprive them of such basic rights. Right to life is given the meaning of widest amplitude to cover variety of rights which go to constitute the meaningful right to life.

29.The Constitution recognizes the duty of the State to provide necessary infrastructure with accelerated need for housing programs to make the fundamental rights of the economically backward classes to settle down in permanent residence a reality and the State is under constitutional obligation in a time bound manner to solve their housing problem on war footing.

30.Among the early Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court acknowledging the right to shelter as forming part of Right to Life under Art­ 21 of the Constitution is the Judgment of Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 (3) SCC 545. The Delhi High Court in the Judgment dt. 18.03.2019 of Ajay Maken and Ors Vs. UOI & Ors 2019 Lawsuit (Del) 913 has attempted to explain and interpret the judgment of Olga Tellis (at Para 87). It was observed in Olga Tellis "that, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life". The Hon'ble Supreme Court acknowledged that the massive migration of the rural population to big cities was for the reason that they have no means of livelihood in the villages. The Apex Court has also observed and held as under:

17 The picture that emerges from the materials on record is that the writ applicants started occupying the subject land situated at Gandhinagar over a period of almost three decades. If attention would have been paid by the State Government at the right time and in the right direction, then the situation, as highlighted before us in the present litigation, could have been averted. There cannot be any denying to the fact that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate health and wellbeing of himself and his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services. The protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter to enjoin the meaningful right to life. The preamble of the Indian Constitution assures to every citizen social and economic justice and equity of status and of opportunity and dignity of person so as to fasten fraternity among all sections of the society in the country. Article 39(b) of the Constitution enjoins upon the State that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to promote welfare of the people by securing social and economic justice to the weaker sections of the society to minimise inequality in income and endeavour to eliminate inequality in status. Article 46 enjoins the State to promote with special care social, economic and educational interests of the weaker sections of the society, in particular, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Right to social and economic justice conjointly commingles with the right to shelter as an inseparable component for meaningful right to life. There need not be any debate on the question whether the right to residence and settlement is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) and is a facet of inseparable meaningful right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The answer has to be in the affirmative. Food, shelter and clothing are three minimal human rights. It is in this context that the State has undertaken as its economic policy the planned development of various housing schemes. The right to allotment of houses constructed by the Housing Board to the weaker sections, lower income group people under the Lower Income Group Scheme was held to be a constitutional strategy, an economic programme undertaken by the State and that the weaker sections are entitled to allotment as per the scheme.

19 In Olga Tellis (supra), the Supreme Court considered the right to dwell on the pavements or in slums by the indigent and accepted the same as a part of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that their ejectment from the place nearer to their work would be deprivation of their right to livelihood. They would be deprived of their livelihood, if they are evicted from their slum and pavement dwellings. Their eviction tantamounts to deprivation of their life. The Constitution Bench had held that if the right to livelihood is not treated as a traditional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of this right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness, but, it would make life impossible to live. The deprivation, therefore, must be consistent with the procedure established by law. It was further held that which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. However, the Supreme Court held in the said case that in all cases of ejectment of the encroachers, it is not obligatory on the part of the State / Corporation to provide alternative accommodation. No absolute principle can be laid down in this regard and would depend upon the facts of each case.