Back
6 Weeks Given to Slum Clusters Near PM's Residence for Relocation:
The has directed residents of three slum clusters located near the Prime Minister's official residence in the Race Course area to vacate their dwellings within six weeks and relocate to a colony at Savda Ghevra. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia upheld the process initiated by the Centre but emphasized that must be meaningful and consistent with the constitutional under .
The court rejected arguments that the relocation violated the Delhi Slum & JJ and Relocation Policy, 2015, noting that the policy permits shifting beyond five kilometres in with , which granted on . It also held that the has the power to initiate removal under Section 10 of the Act.
Background: The Challenge to
Approximately 717 dwelling units at Bhai Ram Camp, Masjid Camp, and DID Colony—all declared Jhuggi Jhopri bastis under the Act—were served notices on . The land, owned by the and managed by the Land and Development Office (), is adjacent to sensitive defence installations, including an operational . A joint survey by and in determined dweller eligibility for .
The residents challenged the before a Single Judge, who upheld it on , but directed authorities to ensure basic amenities and waive . Dissatisfied, the residents appealed, arguing that the entire process violated the 2015 Policy: they sought within five kilometres and contended that , not the Ministry, should have been the nodal agency conducting the survey and implementing the scheme.
Court’s Reasoning: Policy Complied With
The Division Bench systematically rejected each contention. It observed that
allows relocation beyond five kilometres
"in case of
"
with
's
.
formally approved the Savda Ghevra site on
, after the matter was considered by the
constituted by the court in
.
On the role of
, the court noted that Section 10(1) of the
Act contains an explanation stating that the Board's powers
"shall not derogate the power of the
to remove jhuggis, if required."
The
, as the land-owning agency, initiated the process in consultation with
at every stage. Regarding the joint survey, the court pointed out that the Draft Protocol itself permits surveys before in-principle approval in special circumstances, and in any case, the government decided to rehabilitate all dwellers irrespective of eligibility, thereby eliminating any prejudice.
Right to
While upholding the , the court devoted substantial attention to the of . Drawing on the 's decision in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), the Bench observed that human dignity is intrinsic to existence and forms part of the . It cited Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (2010), where the High Court had held that evicted slum dwellers lose a ""—livelihood, shelter, health, education, and dignity.
The court recorded
given by the authorities in
, including free Delhi Metro travel for one family member for a year, admission of children in nearby schools, provision of ceiling fans and induction cookware, and establishment of a round-the-clock camp office.
"Any defiance or non-compliance thereof shall be viewed seriously by the Court,"
it warned.
to Supervise
To ensure these commitments are honoured, the court constituted a seven-member headed by a retired Delhi Higher Judicial Services officer, Man Mohan Sharma. The committee includes senior officials from , , the , , and the . It has a six-month tenure, extendable by two months, and is tasked with regularly supervising the process. The committee may issue binding directions to all concerned agencies.
Directions for Vacation and Implementation
The court modified the Single Judge's order by extending the vacation deadline from 15 days to six weeks.
"The appellants shall vacate their dwelling units in the three Jhuggi Jhopri bastis at B.R. Camp, Masjid Camp and DID Colony within six weeks from today,"
the Bench ordered. Within this period, they must be settled in the allotted flats at Savda Ghevra; thereafter, authorities may evict with police assistance if necessary.
is directed to facilitate transportation of household belongings.
The court clarified that the and order stand modified to the extent of these additional directions and . The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Key Observations
In its judgment, the court made several poignant observations:
-
"When a family living in a Jhuggi is forcibly evicted, each member loses a 'bundle' of rights—the right to livelihood, to shelter, to health, to education, to access to civic amenities and public transport and above all, the ."
-
"Human dignity is intrinsic to and inseparable from human existence. Dignity of human existence is fully realised only when one leads a quality life."
-
"Relocation of dwellers of the Jhuggi Jhopri bastis and their has to be necessarily in a manner which will make these dwellers realise their ."
The ruling reaffirms that while the state may evict for legitimate public purposes, it must do so in a manner that upholds the fundamental rights of the urban poor. The 's oversight is expected to set a precedent for future schemes in Delhi.
