Bombay High Court: Slum Dwellers Have Equal Right to Dignity, Safety & Livable Conditions Under Constitution

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that individuals residing in slums or informal settlements are entitled to constitutional protection, including the right to live with dignity, safety, and access to basic living standards. The Court upheld the legality of Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which permits the rehabilitation of slum dwellers on lands reserved for open spaces under specific conditions.

Constitutional Framework is Living, Not Theoretical

A Division Bench comprising Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan emphasized that the Indian Constitution is a dynamic and evolving document. They asserted that while the right to a clean environment is a constitutional mandate under Article 21, it must be balanced with the equally critical right to shelter and dignified living.

“While in an ideal society free of urban poverty and inequality, strict eviction might appear constitutionally justifiable, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the lived realities of a city like Mumbai,” the bench stated. The judgment recognized that urban slums, although developed without legal sanction, often arise out of compulsion and desperation rather than willful encroachment.

Slum Dwellers Are Not Beyond Constitutional Protection

The Court categorically rejected the view that slum dwellers have no rights due to lack of legal title. It held that those living in informal settlements must be seen as equal citizens. Their presence on encroached lands, though not legally sanctioned, cannot be met with harsh eviction measures unless humane alternatives are provided.

The Court noted:

“They may lack ownership rights, but they are not without rights. When people occupy land due to economic compulsion, their act must be seen through a lens of compassion. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution direct the State to mitigate structural issues like poverty and inequality.”

Right to Environment and Right to Housing Must Coexist

Rejecting the argument that environmental rights and housing rights are conflicting, the Court clarified that both form part of the expansive understanding of Article 21. A clean environment and secure housing are not mutually exclusive; both are essential to the right to live with dignity.

The Bench observed:

“Removing thousands of families without due process in the name of protecting green spaces could itself violate Article 21. Unsafe, unhygienic, and overcrowded living conditions harm health just as polluted air and water do.”

Regulation 17(3)(D)(2): A Balanced Redevelopment Approach

The crux of the matter was the constitutional challenge to Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the DCPR 2034. This provision allows rehabilitation of slum dwellers occupying lands earmarked as open spaces—but only if 35% of such land is preserved as public open space. The Court ruled that the regulation doesn’t promote illegal encroachment. Rather, it seeks to regularize existing informal settlements with fairness and dignity, while retaining a portion of the land for green or recreational use.

The Court underscored that the regulation applies only to lands already encroached upon—not to untouched parks or open areas. These are sites where slum dwellers have resided for years, often due to governmental inaction or lack of affordable housing.

“This is not about allowing unregulated growth. It’s about transforming existing settlements into formal, safe housing while preserving public spaces. The Constitution requires us to find a balanced path—not to sacrifice one right for another,” the judges noted.

Judgment Does Not Permit Free-For-All Construction

The Court was cautious in clarifying that the judgment should not be misconstrued as a green light to reduce open spaces. The responsibility to preserve and expand green zones still rests with the State and planning authorities. In fact, the bench urged authorities to enhance per capita open space, especially in densely populated wards of Mumbai.

“The current shortage of open areas cannot justify the status quo nor allow uncontrolled development. Authorities must enforce open space provisions strictly in all urban planning layouts,” the Court emphasized.

Reaffirming Social Justice and Environmental Integrity

Highlighting that both environmental conservation and social justice are constitutional imperatives, the Court concluded that the challenged regulation strikes a thoughtful balance between these interests. It is not regressive but represents a constructive way forward to address the dual challenges of urban housing and sustainable development.

“The Constitution does not force a choice between the poor and the environment. Instead, it demands inclusive growth that respects both,” the bench declared.

Case Details

Title: NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) vs State of Maharashtra

Writ Petition: 1152 of 2002

Court: Bombay High Court

Coram: Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan

Date of Judgment: June 2025

Key Regulation: DCPR 2034 - Regulation 17(3)(D)(2)

Legal Representation:

• Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Shiraz Rustomjee with team (Jariwala Associates)

• State: Sr. Adv. Anil Sakhare & Addl. Govt. Pleader Abhay Patki

• SRA: Sr. Adv. Dr. Milind Sathe (Utangale & Co.)

• MCGM: Sr. Adv. Ram Apte

• Intervenors: Multiple Senior Advocates including Pravin Samdani and Ashish Kamat