Delhi High Court Establishes New Precedent in Forced Eviction: Ajay Maken v. Union of India

Introduction

The case Ajay Maken And Others v. Union Of India And Others adjudicated by the Delhi High Court on March 18, 2019, marks a significant milestone in the jurisprudence surrounding forced evictions and the right to adequate housing in India. This petition, originally filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), addressed the controversial and forceful eviction of approximately 5,000 residents from the Shakur Basti (West) near Madipur Metro Station in Delhi.

The eviction was executed by officials from the Northern Railway, an agency under the Ministry of Railways, accompanied by Delhi Police personnel, resulting in the displacement of thousands, including vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. The petitioner, Ajay Maken, a seasoned politician with extensive legislative experience, spearheaded the legal challenge against the Union of India and associated respondents, seeking redress for the impacted slum dwellers.

Central to the case were issues of legality surrounding the demolition, adequacy of rehabilitation measures, and adherence to both national statutes and international human rights obligations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justices S. Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, delivered a comprehensive judgment emphasizing the state’s obligation to ensure humane and lawful eviction processes. The court underscored that forced evictions must align with the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Act, 2010 (DUSIB Act), and respect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution and international covenants like the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Key directives from the judgment included:

Obligation for the Railways and Delhi Police to provide a detailed, step-by-step account of the eviction process.
Mandate for conducting thorough surveys to determine eligible residents for rehabilitation.
Implementation of coordinated rehabilitation plans in compliance with the 2015 Policy and the newly formulated Draft Protocol.
Appointment of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) as the nodal agency for overseeing rehabilitation and ensuring the provision of essential services like shelter, health, food, and education.
Engagement with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to monitor and report on the adequacy of rehabilitation measures.
Explicit instructions against further coercive actions against displaced persons without adherence to the laid-down protocols.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment drew extensively on established precedents to fortify its stance on forced evictions and the right to adequate housing:

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and shelter, establishing that eviction without adequate rehabilitation infringes on fundamental rights.
Sudama Singh & Others v. Government Of Delhi & Anr. (2010): This Delhi High Court decision laid down guidelines for the removal and rehabilitation of slum dwellers, emphasizing the necessity of surveys and proper rehabilitation plans prior to eviction.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Highlighted in General Comments No. 4 and No. 7, emphasizing the multifaceted nature of the right to adequate housing and the protocols against forced evictions.
South African Jurisprudence: The court referenced landmark cases like Grootboom and Joe Slovo, which advocate for comprehensive rehabilitation measures and the principle of meaningful engagement with affected communities.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning was grounded in both domestic constitutional provisions and international human rights standards. Central to its reasoning were:

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Interpreted expansively to include the right to life with dignity, which encompasses the right to adequate housing.
DUSIB Act, 2010: Mandates the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board to oversee the removal and resettlement of slum dwellers, ensuring that evictions are carried out lawfully and humanely.
ICESCR and Its General Comments: Reinforced the obligation of the state to prevent arbitrary evictions and to provide comprehensive rehabilitation.
Right to the City (RTTC): Integrated into the analysis as a broader human right emphasizing equitable access to urban resources and participation in decision-making.

The court emphasized that eviction cannot be merely about relocating individuals; it must ensure that displaced persons are not left destitute. Rehabilitation must be adequate, encompassing housing, livelihood opportunities, access to education, and healthcare.

Impact

This judgment sets a stringent precedent for future eviction cases, particularly involving slum dwellers in urban India:

Strengthening Legal Protections: Elevates the necessity for adherence to due process in eviction, ensuring that residents' rights are safeguarded.
Operationalizing the DUSIB Act: Reinforces the role of the DUSIB in coordinating removal and rehabilitation, thereby streamlining processes across different agencies.
Integration of International Standards: Aligns domestic eviction practices with international human rights obligations, promoting a more humane and rights-based approach.
Enhanced Oversight and Accountability: Mandates regular reporting and collaboration with bodies like the NHRC, ensuring continuous monitoring of rehabilitation efforts.
Urban Policy Development: Influences urban development policies to incorporate comprehensive silum rehabilitation strategies, aligning with the RTTC and sustainable urban planning principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

DUSIB Act, 2010: A statutory framework in Delhi aimed at managing slum rehabilitation and urban renewal. It defines processes for removing slum dwellers and ensuring their proper resettlement.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): An international treaty that commits its parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights to individuals, including the right to adequate housing.
Right to the City (RTTC): A concept advocating for equitable access to urban resources and participation in urban governance, ensuring that all city inhabitants can influence and benefit from urban development.
Forced Eviction: The unilateral removal of individuals or communities from their homes by the state or its agents without adequate notice, compensation, or alternative accommodation.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A legal action initiated in a court of law for the protection of public interest, allowing individuals or groups to seek legal remedy for widespread social issues.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's judgment in Ajay Maken And Others v. Union Of India And Others serves as a pivotal reinforcement of the legal safeguards against arbitrary forced evictions. By mandating adherence to the DUSIB Act, integrating international human rights standards, and emphasizing comprehensive rehabilitation, the court underscores the state's duty to uphold the dignity and rights of its most vulnerable citizens.

This decision not only impacts future eviction cases but also propels urban policymakers to craft more inclusive and humane urban development strategies. It bridges the gap between constitutional mandates and international obligations, setting a robust framework for the protection of slum dwellers' rights in India.

Ultimately, the judgment embodies a progressive step towards realizing the 'Right to the City' and ensuring that urbanization does not come at the cost of human dignity and social justice.