This article examines the protection mechanism of housing rights in India. The roles of Supreme Court and High Court have been discussed. In addition, NGOs roles are illustrated. For background information, Indian Constitution, International Law and cases of forced eviction have been given. Here’s an erudite research by Norway-based, Amit, our Editor-at-Large, on the Human Rights violations, exclusively in Different Truths.

Housing rights are the most pervasive and best-developed rights under the international law. Ironically, the gap between housing rights rhetoric and realisation is extremely broad in almost every country in the world[1]. India is no exception to this and indeed lags behind to the rest of the world in many facets of the implementation especially its protection mechanism of housing rights[2]. Like the majority of the nations in the world, India has signed the international human rights treaties thus it has specific obligation to provide the adequate housing to its people, yet rarely in the many laws and programs relating to housing rights are those rights proclaimed and, nowhere they are adequately protected[3]. Homelessness, forced eviction, and inadequate housing are a serious cause of concerns, especially the cases of the demolition of Dalits’ house.

The right to adequate housing has undergone unprecedented legal development recently through covenant, legislation and court decision, at the national, regional and international levels. Yet India is increasingly isolated in its refusal to incorporate housing rights and in its domestic legal system. Government apathy and rampant corruption have dented the institutions and laws of protection mechanism of housing rights. Despite India’s legal obligation, the reality with regards to the living condition for the majority of Indian is dismal, especially for the lower castes.  Present degree of violation related to forced eviction is unacceptable and represents a flagrant breach of India’s constitutional and national legal obligation to committee under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (I.C.E.S.R) and other instruments[4].

This article concludes that India is in violation of their international human rights obligation related to housing rights.

Housing Rights in International Law

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was the first international instruments in which housing rights were found its expression and recognition[5]. It gained further attention later through Vancouver Declaration on Human Resettlements (1976)[6], the International Year for the Shelter and Homeless (1987)[7] and the Global Strategy for the Shelter to the Year 2000[8].

General Comments No. 4 of the committee of ESCR[9](1991) stresses on the right to live in peace, security, and dignity as the central principal theme of the right to adequate housing. It has expanded the meaning of adequate housing rights which includes legal security of tenure, the availability of service and goods, habitability, accessibility, affordability, viable location and cultural adequacy[10]. General comments No. 7 of the committee notes that evictions should not render people homeless[11].

Housing rights have found expression in different international instruments using different slight terminology including inter alia[12]

– International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (I.C.C.P.R.), which protect person from arbitrary or unlawful interference with their home (Article 17)[13].

-The Convention on the Rights on Child obliges state parties in case of need to provide material assistance and support programs to families and children particularly regarding housing rights[14], article 23(3).

Protection Mechanism of Housing Rights in Indian Constitutional Law   

The right to housing in India is defined through judicial interpretation of the fundamental right to life, rather than any direct guarantee in the Indian constitution[15]. In the eighties, such interpretation is largely associated with the “right to live with human dignity” with access to “adequate nutrition, clothing, and shelter[16]”. In 1990[17], it went a step further in stating that “reasonable residence is an indispensable necessity” for human development and the fulfillment of the “right to life.”

The list of constitutional provisions (fundamental duties and rights, directives principles) that has bearing on the right to adequate housing, are:

I.                Fundamental Rights[18] (part 3)

1.  Equality before the law  (Article 14 )
2. Nondiscrimination on the basis  of caste, religion, sex,  place of birth (Article 15. 1)
3. Equality of opportunity in matters related to employment or appointment in any state Office (Article 16)
4. Freedom of movement within country  ( Article 19  (1) (D)
5. Freedom to live and settle in any part of India ( Article 19  (1 )(E)

II.               Directive Principles of  State Policy[19] (part 4 )

1.  The state should promote the policy of equality of genders in the case of equal opportunity for livelihood. ( Article 39.(A)
2. State should follow the policy of equal pay for equal work for both men and women     (Article 38 (D)
3. State policy to be oriented towards securing the equal justice and free legal aid (Article 39 (A)

III.             Legal Right to Property

No man or women shall be deprived of their right to property by the state except by the   authority of law (Article 300-A)

The Role of Domestic Courts in Protecting Housing Rights

The Supreme Court:  Indian constitution gave extensive jurisdiction powers to the Supreme Court in regards to enforcement of fundamental rights[20]. Article 127 to 147 of the constitution lay down the composition and jurisdiction of the supreme courts of the India. It is an appellate court which takes up appeals against judgment of the high courts of the states and territories. But it also takes writ petition in cases of serious human rights violations that need immediate attention.[21]

While judicial remedies can only over form part of any successive formula for ensuring the society-wide enjoyments of housing rights.  Court of law can be driving forces in support for housing rights. More than two decades the Supreme Court has issued a range far-reaching decisions relying both on the right to life provisions found in Article 21 of the constitution[22] as well as the directives principles of the constitution and other norms to housing rights of dwellers and provide substance to their rights[23].

But after a span of progressive judgment, strong public litigation and judicial activism, the Supreme Court had passed a number of anti-poor judgments in recent years and have contributed to the violation of housing and land rights especially[24], in Amrita Patel V. Union of India case[25], while the Supreme Court expressed its unhappiness over the displaced slum dwellers but maintained that land should be transferred free to the municipal corporation. The court has issued a number of judgments to clearing the slums on the ground that they are on the public land[26].

High Courts of India (State courts) 

High Courts are instituted as the constitutional court under article 214 of the Indian constitution[27]. High Courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in the state along with district courts which are subordinate to the high courts[28]. High Courts exercise their original civil and criminal jurisdiction only if the courts subordinated in the state are not competent (not authorized by law), However, primarily work of most High Courts consist of appeals from lower courts and writ petitions. Judges in high courts are appointed by the president of India in consultation with the chief justice of India and the governor of the state[29].  Under Article 141 of the constitution of India, all courts in India which include high courts are bound by the judgments and orders of the supreme courts of India by precedence.

In a significant judgment, the Gujrat High Court ordered Baroda Municipal Corporation to allot 6600 residential accommodation to hutment dwellers under the Jawahar Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission[30]. The courts, however, have not been very consistent in interpreting housing as fundamental human rights of all citizen[31]. The order of demolition of slum clusters was given in august 2004 by Delhi High Court. The current order clearly favours the rich and influential and the urban poor particularly vulnerable groups (lower caste) are increasingly being called ‘encroachers” and “trespassers” and being denied the fundamental right to live freely in any part of Indian Territory and the right to life and dignity.

In several legal cases, the right to life has been closely interlinked with the right to housing as guaranteed in the article 21 of the Indian constitution[32]. The Supreme Court of India clearly holds this view that adequate right of housing is the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Article 21.This opinion of Supreme Court supported by its ruling in U.P Avas Vikas Parasid Vs. Friends Cooperative Society Limited[33] where the court ruled that:

‘The right to shelter is the fundamental right which is inherent in the right to residence under Article 19 1(e) and the right to life under Article 21’.

In Francis Coralie Vs Union Territory of Delhi case (1981)[34], Supreme Court maintained that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity with the stress on adequate nutrition, cloth, and shelter. Further interpreting the right to life, the Supreme Court in the Chameli Singh and others Vs state of U.P[35] case ruled  that “the right to shelter, therefore, doesn’t mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable to live and develop as a human being”.

In Olga Tellis Vs.  Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court observed that the right to shelter is ingrained and indivisible with the right to livelihood[36].

Housing Policies Trends

In 1970, slum improvement was recognised as a long-term solution to informal settings. The environmental improvement of the urban slum was launched in 1972 by the central government. The Urban Land Ceiling Act (UCLA 1976)[37] was launched to allow vacant land and land in excess of stipulations to be available for poor (UBSP, 1977), successfully implemented for two decades.The issue of security of tenure has become important in solving the problems of informal settlements which was recognized largely due to international development in understanding and articulation of housing rights.

The National Housing Policy[38] of 1994, reflected a human rights perspective, were committed to the prevention of forced eviction, slum renovation, conferment of occupancy rights and for the first time, a joint ownership of entitlement of land /housing between men and women were provided. The draft National Slum Policy[39] of 1999, advocated the integration of informal settlements with the rest of the city and the right of the residents to participate in decision-making. The 73[40]rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1993 increased the role of local government and created a space for the citizen to participate directly in decision-making.

Rehabilitation and Resettlements Bill 2007 [41] – this bill provided the benefit and compensation to people displaced by land acquisition purchase or any other involuntary displacement. For large scale displacements government conducted a social impact assessment and appointed an administration for rehabilitation and resettlement to formulate and execute the rehabilitation and resettlement plan while outlining minimum benefits for displaced families. In addition, a post of ombudsmen has also been created to address the grievance in the process[42].

Non-governmental Organisation (NGO) 

The role of civil society especially NGOs in advocating the human rights in housing emerged in the second half of the eighties in response to various large-scale violations through forced evictions displacements across the country.  National Campaign for Housing Rights (NCHR)[43] represented organisations and people from diverse background and parts of the country and was instrumental in making the right to housing a national agenda, provided a platform to make substantial contribution to the global discussion on housing organized through the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements (UNCHS). NCHR have been able to influence the policy makers and political parties[44].

However, the role of other N.G.O such as People Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) has been of utmost importance in raising, campaigning and advocating the housing rights at the regional and national level. Based in Varanasi, run by Dr. Lenin Reghuvansi, PVCHR has been highlighting the cases of forced evictions/demolition of Dalits (untouchables) houses[45]. When State failed to protect the homes (mainly called Basti) of Dalits, usually run down by upper caste people, in such circumstances, PVCHR provides the hope for hopeless people of the marginalised community. Upon the violation, when police do not lodge complaints of downtrodden people than through petition to the National Human Rights Commission and by garnering support from media and civil society, PVCHR were able to stop many house demolitions of Dalits. However, usually local N.G.Os provide basic assistance and amnesties to the victims whereas N.G.O working at national level focus mainly on the policy work playing a vital role at the identification of the serious issues and gaps in current policy or legal framework.

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a device by which public participation in the judicial review of administration action is assured. Under PIL courts takes up cases that concern not the right of the petitioner but the public at large. In the last two decades, P.I.L. has emerged as one of the most powerful tools promoting social justice and for protecting the right of the poor[46]. One of the first and most important housing rights case to go to the Supreme Court in India was the Olga Tellis case[47] the petition to the Bombay High Court was is the form was a public interest litigation by thousand of pavements dwellers of Bombay city. The judgment handed down, in this case, expanded the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution to include within its scope, the right to livelihood, in this context translated into the right to be allowed to remain on the pavement.

Conclusion 

The Indian Constitution guarantees special provisions for the protection, education, and employment for socially marginalised groups while providing them cheap and affordable homes. However, these legislations and public programs can be more relevant only if supported by adequate human rights education and public awareness. There are enough mechanisms for the protection of the housing rights in India, however, government apathy towards housing rights policy implementation, rampant corruption in public departments, incompetent police, and growing police–mafia nexus is hindering the laws from taking its own course. Excessive delay in the legal process and expensive lawyers made the justice out of reach for the common man. In addition, unequal social structure (caste system) has made the situation from bad to worse. Upper-class people in collusion with police and politician have carried many forced/demolished homes without being punished.

Even sometimes, judges are not even consistent while ruling the judgment in the cases of housing rights. The presence of a thriving civil society and group of NGO such as PVCHR, keep mounting pressure on public representatives, forming of public opinion and mobilisation on housing rights thus helping people to utilise those protection mechanisms for their help.

List of References 

Act of commission Acts of Omission, April 2008. Housing and Land Rights and the Indian State, [online] Available at:< www.mmpindia.org/updatde_CESCR_nov05.PD > [Accessed at 22 Sept. 2010]

Act No, 20 of 1990 of Govt. of India) No. 20 of 1990

AIR 1981 SC 746 at 753

AIR 114 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 456 1995 SCALE (3)60

Act 43 of (2006), chapter V, Article 21 (2) a, b, c, (3) 4, 5,

Article 227 Article 214, Chapter 5, High Courts in States, Constitution of India, Chapter 5, Power of superintendence over all the courts by the High Courts

Article 223, Chapter 5, Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of the High Courts   (Jan Sangharsh Manch Vs. the State of Gujrat, Special Leave Petition No. 6029, 2008)

Ashok H. Desai and S. Muralidhar, Public Interest Litigation – Potential and Problem, New Delhi, Oxford University Press -2000, p-159

Constitution of  India , < lawmnic.in.coi.coison29July2008.pdf> [Accessed at 20 September 2010]

Census of India , 2001 , Total slum population , [Online]available at : <ww.censusindia.goc.in/census_Data_2001/Census_data_finder/A_Seriies/Total_Sluma-population.htm> (Accessed date 22 September 2010)

Constitution of  India , (1 December 2007) , modified version,  <lawmnic.in.coi.coison29July2008.pdf> , [Accessed at 20 September 2010]

Dan,Nicholson, (2004) “The Human Rights to Housing in Australia”COHRE,(Rivkash Nisim and Kate Colvin eds.) page-5, produced by Housing a Human Rights Project .

Francis Coralie v The Union Territory of Delhi , 1 SCC 608 (1981); and Francis Mulin v Union Territory of Delhi 2 , SCR 516(1982)

Functions of the National Commission of Women ,( 1990. Article 10) , chapter 3

HR act (1993), 14.1[online]< http://nhrc.nic.in/> [Accessed at 20 Sept. 2010]

Human rights act (1993), 17, c 3 [online]< http://nhrc.nic.in/>  [Accessed at 20 Sept. 2010]

Human Rights Protection Act (1993) 17 (1), Chapter 1[online]< http://nhrc.nic.in/> [Accessed at 20 Sept. 2010]

Human Rights Act (1993), 30, chapter 5.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (1988) Law and the Urban Poor in India, B.R. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi

Millon Kothari, Sabrina Karmali and Shivani Chaudhry, (2006) Degenerating Role of Judiciary, Factors Impacting the Realization of Human Rights to Adequate Housing and Land , National Commission for Human Rights, New Delhi,

Minal Pimple and Lysa John, Yuva, Dyanmic Responces to the Houisng Challenges of the Poor, Regional Dialogue on Housing Rights, Bangkok, 27-29 June, 2004

Navniti CGHS Vs. Lt. Governer (WP (C) 5697/2002) Narmada Bachao Andoln V. Union of India

Navniti CGHS Vs.  Lt. Governor case  (WP  (C) 5694/2000)

Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal corporation case (1985 3 SCC 545)

1. Alston and G. Quinn , ‘ The Nature and Scope of State Parties’ obligation under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , Vol- 9 ,NO- 2 (1987),PP. 156 -229

Shantistar Builder v Narayan Khimalal Totome and others 1 SSC 520 (1990)

Shaid, M.Z., YUVA in the Right to Housing, 1994/07 India, Vol 1, No. 3).

The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 (As amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment Act, 2006-No- 43 of 2006) Chapter 2, Article 3 Constitution of a National Human Rights Commission

The Union Judiciary, Article 131 See chapter 4, (original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Constitution of India, 1 (December 2007), modified version.

Tiphange, Henri.  Sabita, Pillai, Bharti. (2010) The NHRC in India- Another Department of the Govt. of India? People’s Watch – India (PW) p. 71, for ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of National Human Rights Institutions in Asia. (Forum-Asia)

The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993(As amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment Act, 2006-No. 43 of 2006) Chapter 5. Article 21 Constitution of the State Human Rights Commission

The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 (As amended by the protection of Human Rights (Amendment Act, 2006-No- 43 of 2006) Chapter 6, Article 30

The Guardian, [online] http://www.guradian.co.uk/india/story/o,12559,1427644,00.html ((5 Mar. 2005)

The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act , (1976), ACT NO. 33 OF 1976, 17th February, 1976, < http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/num_act/ulara1976279/> [Accessed at 20 Sept. 2010]

Uprendra Bakshi (1982) “Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Courts of India” in Review of the International Commission of Jurist, Vol 129.  On India, See M.G. Chitkara and P.L. Mehta Law and the Poor: A Socio Legal Study:  Asish Publication House, 1991, New Delhi

United Nations Resolutions and other Documents

E/C/IND/5 1 March 2007.

E/RES/1987/137. Resolution 1987/37, The International Shelter for the Homeless”, adopted 28 May 1987, < gopher://gopher.un.org//00//esc/recs/1987/37> [Accessed at 22 August 2010]

E/1998/22, PP.113-118; Forced eviction, Report of the Committees of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights doc.< http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/ca12c3a4ea8d6c53c1256d500056e56f?Opendocument> [Accessed at 20 September 2010]

E/1992/23, “The Right to Adequate Housing (Article 11(1) of the Covenant),” December 1991., adopted at the sixth session , 13 Annex III < http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/ca12c3a4ea8d6c53c1256d500056e56f?Opendocument> [Accessed at 18 September 2010]

E/C.12/1997/4, “The right to adequate housing” (Article 11.1 of the Covenant): forced eviction, sixteenth session (1997), available at< http:/www.unchr.ch/tbs/doc.> [ Accessed at 22 September]

Global Strategy for Shelter to year 2000”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 43/181 on 20 Dec. 1988, < http://www.unhabitate.org/housing> [Accessed at 23 August 2010]

The Millennium Development Goal Report (2010),[online]

[Available at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20 Report%En%20r15%20-low52%0res%20201006115%20-pdf  [Accessed at 23 Sept. 2010]

Universal Declaration on Human Rights , Article 25(1)< http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml> [Accessed at 23 Sept. 2010]

UN-HABITAT, (200b)< http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?ID=1176&catid=10&typeid=24&subMenuId=0> [Accessed at 23 Septemebr 2010]

Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements’ , adopted at Habitat: United Conference on the Human Settlements ,(Vancouver , Canada- 31-11 june, 1976) ( UN publication , Sales no- E.76.IV. and corrigendum

World Wide Web  Sources

http://www2.occhr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art23 [Accessed at 20 Aug. 2010]

hre.pro.edu.tw/download/basic_doc-en-10-1158562129/ICCPR_eng.doc [Accessed at 15           Aug.2010]

http://indiabudjet.nic.in/es97-98/chap108.pdf  [Accessed at 23 Aug.2010]

http://www.whoinindia.org/linkfiles/plicy_slum-policy.pdf [Accessed at 23 Aug.2010]

http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amen/amen/73.htmhttp:  [ Accessed at 23 Aug.2010]

http:/www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Rehabilitation%20and%20Resttlemtns/1197003987_Rehab_20nd_20settlemt.pdf , Bill no 98 of 2007 [Accessed at 13 Aug. 2010]

http://www.Indianlaw.com/display.aspx, Policy Watch ) [ Accessed at 16 Aug. 2010]

http://www.hudco.org[Accessed at 17 Aug. 2010]

http://www.sparcindia.org [Accessed at 17 Aug. 2010]

Relevant  National  Court  Cases

case no- 505/10/97-98(FC

case no- 667/1/2002- 2003(FC

(2000 2 SCC 679 at 571-72)

(1996 2 SC 549 132)

(1985), 3 SCC 545

Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, Laws Affecting the Right to Adequate Housing in Selected Asian Countries, Karachi, ACHR, (1996)

A Place to call Home – Asian People’s Dialogue Conference Proceedings, Seoul , Republic of Korea : Habitat International Coalition and Bangkok, ACHR, (14-20 June, 1989)

Sachar, Rajindar., ‘Housing and India’, In National Perspectives on Housing Rights, The Hague: Kluwer International Publication (2001)

Murphy, Denis. ‘A. Dream place to Live’-Urban Poor in Asia: Bangkok, ACHR, (1990)

National Campaign for Housing Rights (NCHR) Slum and Pavement Dwellers: The Travesty of Justice, In Lokayan Bulletin, vol.8:2 India (March –April 1990)

Pavement Dwellers Encroachment or Pavements of Encroachment on Rights, Unnayan, Calcutta, (Aug 1985)

Some Policy Issue for Rural Housing in India Today: In Morning Technology, pp. 3-8 (Feb-1987)

‘What is the Nature of the Housing Rights in India Today? In Lokayan Bulletin , Vol. 3, Nos. 3-5, 22-45, 119-147, 45-49, (1985)

©Amit Singh

Photos from the internet.

[1] Dan Nicholson, the Human Rights to Housing in Australia, COHRE, 2004, P.g.5, Produced by the Housing is a Human Rights Projet.

[2] According to Census of India, 23.1 % of the Indian population of 286 million lives in the slums but actual figure estimates it to be much higher as only 607 cities were included in this efforts.

[3] As committees of the economic, social and cultural rights has criticized India for neglecting its obligation to promoting ,protecting and fulfilling the adequate housing rights in its combined 2^nd ,3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th periodic report on India, E/C/IND/5 1 March 2007.

[4] Act of Commission Acts of Omission, Housing and Land Rights and the Indian State, April 2008, A report to the United Nation committee of economic, social and cultural rights.

[5] Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 25(1)

[6] Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements’, adopted at Habitat: United Conference on the Human Settlements, (Vancouver, Canada- 31-11 June, 1976) ( UN publication, Sales no- E.76.IV. and corrigendum)

[7] E/RES/1987/137. Resolution 1987/37, The International Shelter for the Homeless”, adopted 28 May 1987, <gopher://gopher.un.org//00//esc/recs/1987/37>

[8] Global Strategy for Shelter to year 2000”, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 43/181 on 20 Dec. 1988,  http://www.unhabitate.org/housing>

[9] See General Comments No. 4, and General comments No. 7 on the right to adequate housing (article 11.1 of the covenant. Forced eviction. Report of the committees of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights doc. E/1998/22, PP.113-118; See also the P. Alston and G. Quinn, ‘The Nature and Scope of State Parties’ obligation under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Vol- 9, No- 2 (1987), pp. 156 -229.

[10] General Comments No 4, The Right to Adequate Housing (Article 11(1) of the Covenant),” adopted at the sixth session, 13 December 1991. (UN Doc. E/1992/23, Annex III

[11] Committee on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights ( CESCR), General Comments ng N0- 7 : The right to adequate housing ( Article 11.1 of the Covenant ): forced eviction , sixteenth session (1997) , ( UN Doc. E/C.12/1997/4) available at http:/www.unchr.ch/tbs/doc.

[12] For more comprehensive information of relevant excerpts from these and other relevant international instruments on housing rights refer to UN-HABITAT, 200b

[13] Article 17(1) of ICCPR states that “No one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his (her) home”  doc. can be found on  –  hre.pro.edu.tw/download/basic_doc-en-10-1158562129/ICCPR_eng.doc

[14] http://www2.occhr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art23

[15] The right not to be deprived one’s property listed under article 19(1) (f) and 31 of the fundamental rights provided by the Indian constitution, was repealed in the 1977. However, indirect reference to the right to housing are included in the article 19(1) (e), 38(1, 2) 39(a) and 47. This contain references to settle in any part of the country , a just social order, equal access to the status, facilities, opportunities; adequate means of livelihood and  standard of living .

[16] Francis Coralie v The Union Territory of Delhi, 1 SCC 608 (1981); and Francis Mulin v Union Territory of Delhi 2 , SCR 516(1982)

[17] Shantistar Builder v Narayan Khimalal  Totome and others 1 SSC 520 (1990)

[18] Constitution of  India , lawmnic.in.coi.coison29July2008.pdf

[19] Constitution of  India , 1 December 2007 , modified version,  lawmnic.in.coi.coison29July2008.pdf , 

[20] See chapter 4, The Union Judiciary , article 131 (original jurisdiction of Supreme court , Constitution of India , 1 December 2007 , modified version .

[21] (Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal corporation case (1985 3 SCC 545).

[22] ( See generally, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (1988) Law and the Urban Poor in India, B.R. Publishing Corporation ,New Delhi )

[23] (Uprendra Bakshi (1982) “Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Courts of India” in Review of the International Commission of Jurist, Vol 129.  On India , See M.G. Chitkara and P.L. Mehta Law and the Poor : A Socio Legal Study :  Asish Publication House, 1991, New Delhi

[24] Millon Kothari, Sabrina Karmali and Shivani Chaudhry, Degenerating Role of Judiciary, Factors Impacting the Realization of Human Rights to Adequate Housing and Land, National Commission for Human Rights, 2006

[25] (2000 2 SCC 679 at 571-72)

[26] Navniti CGHS V. Lt. Governer (WP (C) 5697/2002) Narmada Bachao Andoln V. Union of India ,

[27] Article 214,  Chapter 5 , High courts in States , Constitution of India

[28] Article 227, Chapter 5, Power of superintendence over all the courts by the High Courts

[29] Article 223, Chapter 5, Appointment of acting chief Justice of the High Courts

[30]  (Jan Sangharsh Manch Vs. State of  Gujrat, Special Leave Petition No. 6029 , 2008 )

[31] In Navniti CGHS  V  Lt. Governor case  (WP  (C) 5694/2000) ,

[32]  Protection to life and personal liberty,  Part 3, fundamental rights , Constitution of  India ,

[33] 1996 AIR 114 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 456 1995 SCALE (3)60

[34] AIR 1981 SC 746 at 753

[35] (1996 2 SC 549 132 )

[36] (1985, 3 SCC 545)

[37] THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976, ACT NO. 33 OF 1976, [17th February, 1976.] An Act to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations, for the acquisition of such land in excess of the ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of buildings on such land and for matters connected therewith, with a view to preventing the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few persons.

[38]    http://indiabudjet.nic.in/es97-98/chap108.pdf 

[39]    http://www.whoinindia.org/linkfiles/plicy_slum-policy.pdf   

[40]    http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amen/amen/73.htmhttp:

[41]http:/www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Rehabilitation%20and%20Resttlemtns/1197003987_Rehab_20nd_20settlemt.pdf , Bill no 98 of 2007

[42] ( Indianlaw.com/display.aspx, Policy Watch )

[43] National Campaign for Housing Rights, was formed in August 1986, as a country-wide independent coalition of organizations and individuals involved in and concerned about the right to people to live in a secure place, in peace and with dignity. Through a small group of people, NCHR succeeded in creating opportunities for people, NCHR succeeded in creating opportunities for people to fulfill their own housing needs. The campaign has been able to influence housing laws within parliament

[44]  (Shaid ,M.Z., YUVA in the Right to Housing ,1994/07 India , Vol 1 ,N 3).

[45] http://www.testimonialtherapy.org/2012/10/houses-of-dalits-demolished-by-members.html

[46] Ashok H. Desai and S. Muralidhar , Public Interest Litigation – Potential and Problem , New Delhi ,Oxford University Press -2000, p-159

[47] (Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Metropolitan Corporation , 1985 3 SCC 545 ) .

#HousingPolicy #GovernmentAndHousing #IndianHousingPolicy #ForcedEviction #InternationalHousingPolicies #CoverStory #DifferentTruths

Amit Singh

Amit Singh is a human security and social justice expert. He is a doctoral candidate at University of Coimbra, Portugal; hold master degrees in history, human rights, and multiculturalism. He is a columnist for several newspapers in Norway and India.

See Full Bio