Shelter Without Rights: Constitutional Crisis Of Forced Evictions In Urban India

The Constitution of India has been widely hailed as a transformational document, where the hierarchies in both social and political life were to be broken down by rights that were enforceable by law. But now bulldozers not only demolish houses in India but also promises of Constitutional guarantees, making promises of equality and security heaps of rubble.

Article 21: Due Process in ruins

India's eviction crisis is not failure of the laws but failure of the system to adhere to the law. In the absence of a national eviction law, states and cities operate on a discretionary regime with limited procedural protections, making demolitions tools of discretionary control rather than lawful authority.

Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) are either completely skipped or minimised to mere 24–72 hour deadlines, rendering meaningful responses impossible. This is in contravention of several laws, which have in common a definite legislative purpose: no demolition without prior notice, hearing and inquiry :

• Section 27, U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973, - provides a 15-40 day period to provide reasonable opportunity to show cause.

• Section 343, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - mandates a written demolition order but only once the person is heard and been given a right to appeal.

• Section 4 and 5, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, - requires a written SCN and a formal inquiry prior to dispossession.

These protections have been regularly reinforced by Courts. In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884 ] the Supreme Court mandated a 15 day personally served SCN and a recorded personal hearing before any demolition. This position was reiterated in the cases of Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 878] and Zulfiquar Haider & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 421] where the Supreme Court condemned arbitrary demolitions as 'totally unconstitutional' and ordered compensation upto ₹10 lakh. In Sudama Singh & Ors v. Government of Delhi & Anr [(2010) SCC OnLine Del 612], the Delhi High Court further mandated that eviction could not occur without a prior survey and genuine consultation with affected communities and in Ajay Maken v Union of India [2019 SCC OnLine Del 7618], a case concerning the legality of the demolition of Shakur Basti in Delhi, a division bench of the Delhi High Court went went a step further and declared rehabilitation as the legal prerequisite for eviction.

Yet, the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard) is routinely denied, striking at the heart of Article 21, which in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [(1985) 3 SCC 545] was held to include not just the right to life but also the right to livelihood and shelter. The G20 beautification drives in Delhi, which rendered over 3 lakh homeless, and the post-protest demolitions in Prayagraj and Kanpur, displacing entire minority neighbourhoods overnight, exemplify this constitutional breakdown.

Article 14: Arbitrariness as governance

Article 14's substantive guarantee of non-arbitrary, reasoned governance is daily subverted by “bulldozer justice” : forced evictions disproportionately impact Muslim and Dalit neighbourhoods, often justified by oral orders or vaguely premised on “beautification” or “anti-encroachment”. Such acts have been rebuked by the Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] wherein the Court deemed arbitrariness as “antithetical to equality” thereby reaffirming that fair decision making is a constitutional requirement. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [(1952) 1 SCC 1], the Supreme Court restated that classification made in the absence of rational justification is violative of Article 14. Yet, these demolition exercises, frequently aimed at already marginalised communities, reflect a kind of administrative practice that does not consider equal protection as the ideal.

In Comparative Jurisdictions, a contrasting trend exists : Section 9 in South Africa and Article 27 in Kenya have been interpreted expressly to protect citizens from excesses of state power and unfair discrimination. Once a pioneer in both public interest litigation and equality jurisprudence, India now stands at the risk of sliding backwards as administrative overreach threatens its constitutional commitments.

Article 300A: A Procedural Shield Rendered Ineffective

The Right to Property guarantee under Article 300A, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” was de-escalated from being enshrined in Part III of the Constitution i.e. a Fundamental Right to a Constitutional Right vide the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act. Even so, landmark Supreme Court rulings such as K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1] have affirmed that dispossession must be anchored in lawful authority, characterized by fairness, and linked to compensation. Similarly in the case of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [1995 Supp (1) SCC 596] and Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [(2013) 1 SCC 353] it was reiterated that the legislative intent of Article 300A is to ensure that any deprivation of property occurs only through abiding by lawful procedure and not on executive whim any acquisition without due compensation would be deemed illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

Despite these judicial mandates, bulldozer-led demolitions continue to regularly bypass acquisition mechanisms, legal authorisations and rehabilitation mandates. The vague notices and oral orders frequently issued by the municipal and state authorities, render families homeless without any recourse whatsoever, making Article 300A a dead letter.

Globally, constitutional regimes such as South Africa's Section 25, which conditions expropriation on public interest and compensation, and Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, frame property rights to balance state power with individual protection. India's version, though procedurally robust on paper, is now systematically undermined, with practice often failing to uphold the rule of law and the original spirit of the constitutional guarantee

Constitutional Morality, Global Jurisprudence, and India's Unfulfilled Obligations

Constitutional Morality Lies at the heart of India's constitutional arrangement, and this according to what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar envisaged would be the moral compass on which the states would operate. It demands obedience to law and to the ideals of equality and dignity in the face of political expediency to the contrary. The Supreme Court in landmark cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [ (2018) 10 SCC 1], has confirmed its responsibility to safeguard minorities against majoritarian impulses, a duty repeatedly compromised by “bulldozer justice.”

The introduction of Public Interest Litigations in India transformed Indian Courts into guardians of socio-economic rights and motivated reforms all over the world. Nonetheless, in the contemporary context, with thousands displaced annually, India is lagging behind other constitutional democracies that have codified the rights to shelter within their enforceable regimes. Precedents include the South African case of Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom [(2000) ZACC 19], which constitutionalised the right to housing and mandated proportional, reasonable measures prior to eviction and the Kenyan case of Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v. Kenya Airports Authority [(Amicus Curiae) 2021 KESC 34 (KLR)] which outlawed state-led evictions in the absence of relocation plans. These jurisdictions offer a roadmap of how Courts should examine state action and thereby turn socio-economic rights from aspiration to enforceable law.

Although the constitutional provisions of India in Articles 21, 14, and 300A provide a strong legal framework to safeguard life, dignity, and procedural fairness, the ground realities demonstrate that these guarantees are not in actual practice, turning the laws into mere formality. The legislation is thus clear; but it is the enforcement of law that has broken down.

Further compounding this gap are India's commitments under international human rights law. General Comments 4 and 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), forbid forced evictions without prior notice, consultation, and resettlement and Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) acknowledges housing as one of the basic human right. Even though India invokes Article 51(c) of the Constitution to to show that it is in line with these standards, routine violations on the ground undermine its standing and reputation as a rights-respecting democracy.

Towards a Constitutional Code: The Right to Shelter Hearings Framework

The need of the hour is a binding national framework to restore law and justice. The Right to Shelter Hearings Framework (RSHF) would institutionalise the current jurisprudence into a procedural code ensuring that eviction becomes a matter of law and not discretion. At its core, the RSHF would:

• Ensure that there is legitimate participation : require the SCN to be delivered 30 days advance of time, place on record evidence of service and ensure substantive right to representation such that the residents have a real opportunity to appeal the demolition.

• Institute independent review processes : Independent institutions must be established to look into whether a demolition order is legal, proportionate and necessary before an order can be implemented.

• Shelter Impact Assessments: Require detailed analysis to study the legal rights, and socio-economic injury and propose viable alternatives to eviction.

• Make rehabilitation a precondition: Before people are displaced, make sure they have immediate relocation plans keeping in mind the distance to schools, employment and social network.

• Introduce individual liability: There should be fines, damages and liability on any act of contempt, on any of the officials who allows or is involved in unlawful demolitions.

This would lead the constitutional guarantee of the right to shelter to become a reality and would turn Articles 14, 21 and 300A into living documents rather than ideals. Bulldozers would cease being instruments of fear and would become symbols of legitimate rule. Evictions without due process are not administrative determinations in themselves--they are state-illegal actions. In the end it is not the skyline of India that will define it's constitutional character but the fact whether it's citizens live under roofs or rubble.

Views are personal.