Supreme Court Seeks Details Of Shelter Homes For Urban Poor From States/UTs Amid Winter Season

While hearing the PIL seeking adequate shelters for homeless persons, the Supreme Court recently called for an affidavit from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) which shall detail inter-alia the number of persons who can be accommodated in existing shelters and how the Board proposes to address deficits (if any).

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan heard the matter and ordered that the affidavit be filed through a Senior Officer giving following details:

(i) Facilities available with DUSIB for accommodating persons without shelter;

(ii) Number of persons who can be accommodated in such facilities;

(iii) The estimated number of persons requiring such facilities;

(iv) If there is any deficit in the facilities available, then the number of persons requiring such facilities and how DUSIB proposes to deal with such a situation.

As per the order, the DUSIB affidavit shall also specify as to whether the persons living in the temporary shelter at Yamuna Pusta and Sarai Kale Khan have been accommodated.

Similar to DUSIB, the states/UTs across the country have also been directed to file their respective affidavits. Considering the urgency (onset of the winter), the Court has asked Secretaries of the concerned Departments in the States/UTs to ensure that appropriate affidavits with all relevant information are duly filed before the next date.

The court has further asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to assist in the matter.

Briefly put, this is a case concerning the right to shelter of unhoused persons in urban areas. In October, 2022, the Court had directed all states/UTs to file status reports. Last year, it directed states/UTs of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar to furnish their winter plans and the temporary measures initiated for the urban homeless. On this occasion, Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioner) highlighted a two-fold problem: the inadequacy of shelters and the condition of the shelters.

During the hearing on December 3, Bhushan argued that the total capacity of shelters across Delhi is 17000, although it should be more than 2 lakh. He further informed that since the Court's orders in 2022, 9 shelters have been demolished, displacing 450 homeless persons living in them (exceeding the capacity of 286). It was also contended that authorities were restrained from demolishing shelters without permission of the Court, yet 5 more shelters were closed citing dilapidated condition - which further displaced 250 homeless persons.

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat (for DUSIB), on the other hand, submitted that the applications listed pertained to only 6 temporary shelters. The same were destroyed during the Yamuna floods and no one is living there since June, 2023. As such, if homeless persons in the area are sought to be shifted to a permanent shelter in Gita Colony, there should be no objection from the petitioner's side.

Countering the petitioner's submission that the permanent shelter is at an inconvenient distance for homeless persons (who are poor migrants), the senior counsel said that ample public transport options are available. On instructions, he added that about 200 beds can be provided at the said shelter.

At one point, Bhushan raised allegations against DUSIB Director-PK Jha, however, the bench shot down the same noting that the Director's name figured only in the complaint. "This is not proper of you, Mr Bhushan. Without verifying document, you cant say this...this can amount to character assassination. This seriously affects someone's reputation. In the verification, there is no mention of his name", said Justice Gavai.

Subsequently, a counsel pointed out that the problem was not limited to Delhi. He further urged that there are various agencies looking after the shelters, but they are not being paid wages. It was requested that Union of India may be asked to revive an earlier scheme (which lapsed). Hearing him, the bench asked for the assistance of AG Venkataramani and adjourned the hearing.

On December 4, the AG appeared. Justice Gavai pointed to him that the states have amended the relevant scheme and the aspect of funding from central government needs to be looked at. Justice Viswanathan, on his part, highlighted that since the lapse of the scheme in 2018, it has not been renewed. In reply to this, the AG said that a new scheme is being proposed. Before parting, the bench also conveyed that assistance can be taken from corporates under the CSR scheme. "You can incentivize...there must be corporates willing to help", said Justice Viswanathan.

Case Title: E.R. Kumar v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003

Click Here To Read/Download Order