Delhi High Court Mandates Relocation and Dignified Rehabilitation for Slum Dwellers
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, August 25, issued a directive granting residents of three slum clusters situated near the Prime Minister's residence in the Race Course area a period of six weeks to vacate their current dwellings. The court mandated their relocation to alternative accommodation provided by the authorities at a Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) Colony in Savda Ghevra.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, while issuing the order, affirmed that the eviction process did not violate the provisions of the 2015 Rehabilitation Policy. However, the Bench emphatically stressed that the rehabilitation of dwellers from Jhuggi Jhopri bastis must be 'meaningful', thereby guaranteeing their fundamental right to live with human dignity, a facet of the Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court further observed that the rehabilitation process for these residents requires consistent monitoring and supervision.
The court specifically directed that the appellants must vacate their dwelling units in the three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis, namely B.R. Camp, Masjid Camp, and DID Colony, within six weeks from the date of the order. During this period, they are to be settled in the accommodation allotted to them in the DUSIB Colony at Savda Ghevra. Following this period, eviction proceedings may be initiated to clear the land, with police assistance if necessary. DUSIB has been tasked, in accordance with Clause 7(vi) of the Draft Protocol outlined in the Circular dated June 14, 2016, to facilitate the transportation of household articles and belongings of the appellants to their new accommodations.
Emphasis on Human Dignity and Monitoring Rehabilitation
To ensure the effective and dignified rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, the Delhi High Court directed the formation of a seven-member Monitoring Committee. This committee is to be headed by a retired Delhi Higher Judicial Services Officer and will be responsible for consistently monitoring and supervising the rehabilitation of dwellers from B.R. Camp, Masjid Camp, and DID Colony. The committee's initial term is set for six months, with a provision for extension by an additional two months. The court stipulated that the Monitoring Committee shall convene regularly, at intervals determined by its Chairperson, to oversee the rehabilitation process and ensure that all promised amenities are provided to the residents.
The Bench underscored the intrinsic link between rehabilitation and human dignity by referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India and Others (2024)*. This landmark judgment addressed caste-based discrimination among prisoners from marginalised communities and expanded the interpretation of the Right to Life, asserting that it extends beyond mere physical survival. The Supreme Court in *Sukanya Shantha* observed that human dignity is inherent and inseparable from human existence, highlighting a close relationship between dignity and the quality of life. It further clarified that the dignity of human existence is fully realised only when an individual leads a quality life, and even incarcerated individuals possess inherent dignity and must be treated humanely. Applying this jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court unequivocally stated that the relocation and rehabilitation of Jhuggi Jhopri basti dwellers must be conducted in a manner that enables them to realise their right to live with dignity, as expounded by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements, including *Sukanya Shantha*.
The court further mandated that the undertakings provided by the authorities in June, which assured proper amenities at the new relocation site, must be fully honoured and complied with. This compliance is crucial to ensure that the rehabilitation of the Jhuggi Jhopri basti dwellers genuinely facilitates their fundamental right to live with dignity.
Regarding the challenge to the eviction and the claim for rehabilitation near the original site, the court referred to Clause 2(a)(iii) of the Rehabilitation Policy, 2015. This clause stipulates that alternate accommodation should ideally be provided either on the same land or within a five-kilometre radius. However, the court noted that the same clause also allows for relocation beyond five kilometres in exceptional circumstances, provided there is prior approval from DUSIB. The court acknowledged the reasons presented for not providing rehabilitation and relocation of the dwelling units within the five-kilometre radius.