'Woman's Dignity Inseparably Connected To Right To Shelter': Madras High Court Orders Restoration Of Demolished Home

Highlighting the importance of shelter for a woman, Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that the dignity of a woman was inseparably connected to her right to shelter. The court also took note of the Supreme Court observations, stating that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution would also include the right to residence.

“The dignity of a woman is inseparably connected to her right to shelter. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, which necessarily encompasses the right to residence,” the court said.

“A home is not merely a structure of bricks and mortar; it is the last refuge of dignity, especially for a woman standing alone against the tides of vulnerability. When such a refuge is razed not by the majesty of law but by the might of men emboldened by influence, it is not merely a civil wrong; it is a constitutional wound,”' the court further observed.

The court made the observations on a petition filed by a woman, V Malar, seeking direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Usilampatti Taluk) and Inspector of Police (Checkanoorani Police Station), seeking to conduct a proper enquiry based on her representation.

The petitioner, a single woman, had submitted that she had purchased property in Kovilangulam Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District and was in peaceful possession of the land. While so, one Jason Tamil Selvan, owner of an adjacent land encroached upon her property with the help two others, Baskarapandiyan and Billgates, and demolished her dwelling rendering her homeless.

She further submitted that though she had given a representation even before the demolition, the same was closed based on undertaking given by Jason Tamil Selvan before the village elders. She further submitted that though a fresh representation was given after the incident, no action had been taken till date, making her approach the court. She argued that Jason was related to politically influential persons, emboldening him to act with impunity.

The prosecution informed the court that Jason had initially approached the court seeking police protection for survey of his land, which was allowed. It was submitted that in furtherance of this order, the police facilitated a survey. The police thus submitted that they had only facilitated the survey and not the demolition.

To this, the petitioner submitted that entire exercise undertaken by Jason to obtain an order for survey was a calculated misuse of the process of law. It was submitted that even assuming that there was a boundary issue, the same should have been remedied through civil adjudication or lawful eviction, rather than demolition.

The court noted that the facts presented a disturbing pattern. The court noted that the petitioner was not impleaded in the earlier proceeding which was for conducting a survey and did not authorise demolition or dispossession.

Noting that the action of the men was wholly illegal, the court added that even a true owner could not dispossess a person in settled possession except by due process of law. The court also criticised the state for not taking any action despite the petitioner raising apprehensions.

“More alarming is the role or rather the absence of role played by the police. When a dispute was brought to their notice and when the petitioner had already expressed apprehension, the police were duty-bound to prevent breach of peace and protect possession,” the court said.

The State, however, informed the court that it had registered an FIR against the men based on a complaint filed by the petitioner. The court then directed the Inspector to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible, within 4 weeks.

Further, noting that those involved in such hooliganism should properly compensate the petitioner, the court ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Vivek Kumar for Mr. M. Deepak Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.C.Geetha, Mr.S.Balaji, Mr.K.Raghal Priyan, Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate

Case Title: V Malar v The Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 180

Case No: W.P.Crl.(MD)No.2270 of 2026