Right To Shelter A Facet Of Article 21; State Must Satisfy Why Entire Property Needs To Be Demolished : Supreme Court
While laying down pan-India guidelines through its judgment in the 'bulldozer matter', the Supreme Court today observed that 'right to shelter' is a facet of 'right to life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the same is to be taken away by way of demolition, the State must satisfy itself that demolition is the only available option, as opposed to compounding or demolishing...
While laying down pan-India guidelines through its judgment in the 'bulldozer matter', the Supreme Court today observed that 'right to shelter' is a facet of 'right to life' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the same is to be taken away by way of demolition, the State must satisfy itself that demolition is the only available option, as opposed to compounding or demolishing in part.
"The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
The Court underscored that even if authorities are faced with unauthorized construction, demolition of entire property may not be the only option. There may be certain unauthorized constructions which could be compoundable; others, where only part of the construction is required to be removed. "In such cases, the extreme step of demolition of the property/house property would, in our view, be disproportionate", the Court said.
It was further added that if people are to be dis-housed, then for taking such steps the concerned authorities must satisfy themselves that the extreme step of demolition is the only available option and other options (including compounding and demolition of only part of the house property) are not available.
Referring to the value of a roof over his head in the eyes of an average citizen, the Court also linked construction of a house to certain socio-economic rights and noted,
"Having a house or a roof over one's head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available."
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884