Delhi High Court Grants 6-Weeks To Three Slum Clusters Near PM's Residence For Relocating To DUSIB Colony
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (August 25) granted six weeks to residents of three slum clusters located near the Prime Minister's residence in the Race Course area to vacate the premises and move to a DUSIB Colony at Savda Ghevra where alternative accommodation has been provided by the authorities.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia in its order though held that there was no violation of the 2015Rehabilitation Policy, 2015 in relation to process of eviction, it however emphasized that rehabilitation of the dwellers of Jhuggi Jhopri bastis has to be meaningful, guaranteeing them right to live with human dignity, which is one of the facets of Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It further observed that the rehabilitation of the residents has to be consistently monitored and supervised.
"The appellants shall vacate their dwelling units in the three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis at B.R. Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony within six weeks from today and within this period they shall be settled in the accommodation allotted to them in DUSIB Colony at Savda Ghevra, Delhi, whereafter they shall be evicted to clear the land, if necessary, with the assistance of the police. DUSIB, in terms of Clause 7(vi) of the Draft Protocol contained in the Circular dated 14.06.2016, shall facilitate transportation of household articles/belongings of appellants to the place of their accommodation," the court held.
It further directed formation of a seven member Monitoring Committee headed by a retired Delhi Higher Judicial Services Officer which shall consistently monitor and supervise rehabilitation of the dwellers of B.R. Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony, the three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis. The term of the panel would be of six months which can be extended for a further period of two months.
The Monitoring Committee shall regularly meet to monitor and supervise rehabilitation of dwellers of the aforesaid three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis so that the amenities are ensured to them and for the said purpose it shall meet on such intervals as may be determined by its Chairperson, the court said.
Human Dignity intrinsic
The bench referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India and Others (2024) which deals with caste-based discrimination of prisoners belonging to marginalised communities, and said that the apex court had expanded the meaning of life and held that Right to Life cannot be restricted to mere animal existence which means something much more than just physical survival.
"Further observations made in Sukanya Shantha (supra) by Supreme Court are that human dignity is intrinsic to and inseparable from human existence and that there is a close relationship between dignity and the quality of life. It has further been observed that dignity of human existence is fully realised only when one leads a quality life. After a detailed discussion surrounding the issue as to what Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India means, Sukanya Shantha (supra) went on to observe that the jurisprudence which emerges on right of prisoners is that even the incarcerated have inherent dignity and that they are to be treated in a humane manner...
we are of the unambiguous opinion that relocation of dwellers of the Jhuggi Jhopri bastis and their rehabilitation has to be necessarily in a manner which will make these dwellers realise their right to live with dignity as explained by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in various judgments, including the judgment in Sukanya Shantha (supra)," the court said.
The court said that the undertakings given by the authorities in June to ensure proper amenities to the residents at the new location shall be are to be fully honoured and complied with ensuring that rehabilitation of dwellers of Jhuggi Jhopri bastis takes place in a manner which will make them realise their fundamental right to live with dignity;
With respect to challenge to eviction and also claim of rehabilitation near the place of eviction the court said that Clause 2(a)(iii) of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2015provides that alternate accommodation shall be provided to the dwellers of the Jhuggi Jhopri bastis either on the same land or in the vicinity, within the radius of 05 kilometres.
However, it said, that the same clause also provides that in case of exceptional circumstances it can be even beyond 05 kilometres with the prior approval of DUSIB. The court noticed that the reason for not providing rehabilitation and relocation of the dwelling units at a place within 05 kilometres is that no suitable flats, location or space was available within the distance of 05 kilometres from the place where the Jhuggi Jhopri bastis are located.
The court also rejected the contention that implementation of rehabilitation in this case is being undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India and not by Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), which is contrary to the Rehabilitation Policy, 2015.
It said that Section 10 of DUSIB Act permits even the Central Government to undertake the process of removal of jhuggis.
The court also said that the Land Owning Agency in this case is Government of India. The land in ownership of the Government of India in Delhi is managed by the L&DO in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. It is only that the land in vicinity of the land where these three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis are located has been in occupation of Army/Air Force.
So far as the land over which three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis are situated is concerned, the Land Owing Agency is the Government of India and it is the L&DO in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, which had initiated the process of eviction and rehabilitation, rejecting the contention that the eviction and consequent rehabilitation has not been made by the Land Owning Agency and hence whole process is illegal.
The court also found that the process of eviction has been initiated as per the decision taken by the High Powered Comittee as approved by the Board, which the court held conformed with the mandate of the court's Order dated 18.09.2023 passed in a Suo Moto Writ Petition also in compliance with the Rehabilitation Policy, 2015 and Draft Protocol.
The appeals were disposed of.
Case title: RAKESH BANSAL AND ORS v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
LPA 382/2026 & CM APPLs. 33905/2026 & 37169/2026