Right to shelter and eviction orders
Right to Shelter and Eviction Orders
Right to Shelter
The Right to Shelter is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of India but has been read into the Right to Life under Article 21 by the judiciary.
It implies that every person has the right to basic shelter as part of the right to live with dignity.
This right is especially important for the urban poor, slum dwellers, and homeless persons.
The state has an obligation to ensure adequate housing and protection against forced evictions without due process.
Eviction Orders
Eviction refers to the legal removal of occupants from a property, typically by court order or government authorities.
Eviction must comply with principles of natural justice and cannot be arbitrary or punitive.
Eviction of slum dwellers or unauthorized occupants has been a sensitive issue balancing property rights, public interest, and human dignity.
The Supreme Court has laid down safeguards like notice periods, alternative accommodation, and non-violent eviction processes.
Important Case Laws on Right to Shelter and Eviction Orders
1. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Facts:
The petitioners challenged the eviction of pavement dwellers and slum residents in Mumbai without alternative accommodation.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and shelter. Eviction without providing alternative accommodation violates this right.
Significance:
Established the Right to Shelter as part of the right to life. Evictions must be carried out with due process and proper safeguards.
2. Chameli Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549
Facts:
Slum dwellers were facing eviction orders without rehabilitation or proper hearing.
Held:
The Court ruled that the state must provide alternative accommodation before eviction and that eviction orders must comply with principles of natural justice.
Significance:
Strengthened the protection against arbitrary evictions and emphasized rehabilitation.
3. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 145
Facts:
The case involved eviction drives in Delhi affecting homeless people and unauthorized colonies.
Held:
The Court emphasized that eviction must be the last resort, and the government has a duty to ensure adequate rehabilitation and housing schemes.
Significance:
Reiterated the state’s responsibility to respect the right to shelter while balancing urban development.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395
Facts:
The Court addressed the eviction of slum dwellers near the Taj Mahal on grounds of environmental protection.
Held:
The Court ordered that evictions could be carried out but only with adequate rehabilitation and alternative housing provided to affected families.
Significance:
Balanced environmental concerns with human rights, highlighting rehabilitation as key.
5. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1
Facts:
This case dealt with eviction of unauthorized occupants in forest areas.
Held:
The Court clarified that evictions must respect due process, and the state should take steps to protect the rights of vulnerable communities.
Significance:
Stressed the importance of procedural fairness and the social impact of evictions.
6. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520
Facts:
The case involved eviction of unauthorized construction occupants.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that eviction orders must be lawful, passed after hearing, and following due process.
Significance:
Emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice in eviction proceedings.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Shelter | Included in right to life under Article 21 |
| Eviction only with due process | Eviction orders must follow natural justice and fair hearing |
| Alternative accommodation | Essential before eviction, especially for slum dwellers |
| Non-arbitrariness | Eviction must not be arbitrary or punitive |
| Balancing interests | Courts balance property rights, public interest, and human dignity |
RELATED Blog
0 comments