2026 Supreme(Del) 845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
Mrs. Khushnuma Khan And Others - Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) 17239 of 2025, CM APPL. 14197 of 2026, CM APPL.14556 of 2026, CM APPL. 28102 of 2026, W.P.(C) 2943 of 2026 and CM APPL. 14195 of 2026
Decided On : 11-05-2026

The right to life includes shelter and livelihood; however, the State may mandate relocation for national security purposes provided it ensures constitutional rights through adequate alternative infrastructure and minimizes prejudice to residents through fair rehabilitation processes, which are subject to limited judicial review.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to life - Right to shelter and livelihood - State-led relocation for national security purposes - Balancing of constitutional rights with state security imperatives. Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness are subject to reasonable constraints where strategic public interest is involved. (Paras 13, 16, 17, 44)

(B) Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial review of policy decisions - Court's hesitation to interfere in matters of national security or strategic infrastructure - Requirement of proving mala fides, unreasonableness, or arbitrariness for judicial intervention - Doctrine of proportionality in the context of displacement and rehabilitation. (Paras 36, 44, 45)

Facts of the case:
Residents of informal settlements situated near strategic defense areas challenged eviction notices and relocation orders. The residents argued that the relocation to an alternative site violated their fundamental rights to livelihood, education, and shelter, and that the authorities failed to comply with established procedural safeguards and rehabilitation protocols.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the fundamental right to life includes the right to shelter and livelihood, it does not act as an absolute bar against displacement for valid public purposes such as national security. The court found that the administrative decision was motivated by the necessity to secure critical infrastructure. Despite procedural deviations in the rehabilitation protocol, the residents suffered no substantive prejudice as eligibility for rehabilitation was confirmed and essential facilities were being established at the alternative site.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the relocation violated fundamental rights under the Constitution and whether the authorities’ failure to strictly follow rehabilitation protocols rendered the eviction order illegal and void.

Ratio Decidendi: Relocation of residents for the purpose of strengthening national security and defense infrastructure is a valid exercise of sovereign power. Constitutional rights to shelter and livelihood are protected by ensuring that the State provides adequate infrastructure at the rehabilitated site and fulfills its procedural obligations, provided that any minor procedural lapses do not cause actual prejudice to the affected parties.

Result: Petitions disposed of with specific directions for the State to ensure compliance with rehabilitation requirements and to provide a fixed timeframe for residents to vacate the occupied locations.