The Constitutional Right to Shelter

Among the plethora of rights given to people worldwide through their respective constitutions and national policies, attention needs to be given to the right to shelter. The housing crisis in India has manifested in the form of slums and is only bound to get worse due to the rise in population. The population of India has risen from 0.596 billion in 1973 to 1.43 billion people in 2023, it has more than doubled in 50 years. Given the constant land scarcity, the only logical next step is to plan the accommodation of the existing population. The primary question is whether a right to shelter can be secured through the existing rights in the Constitution of India.

Understanding the Word Shelter

The word shelter does not merely mean a roof over one’s head. Shelter is an infrastructure for a human being to develop themselves physically, mentally, intellectually, and spiritually. An argument could be made that this demand to provide more than a roof is excessive. But the emphasis on development is what separates humans from other living things. Right to life can be interpreted as the right to live with dignity. In KS Puttasawamy v Union of India, the judgment emphasised the inseparable relationship between the protection of life and liberty with dignity. It was held that an individual is the focal point of the Constitution, given that the well-being of the community at large is determined by the realisation of individual rights at a personal level. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is read as follows: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This article’s scope is far beyond what the literal interpretation of it results in. The Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of its meaning over time. In Francis Coralie v Union Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes bare necessities of life like nutrition, clothing, shelter, and furthermore. Article 21 read with Article 19(1)(e) establishes the right to shelter. The Supreme Court of India, while referring to the Munn v Illinois held that Article 21 covers the right to possession of his limbs. It is not an exaggeration to say that the aforementioned articles naturally extend to the right to shelter.

Shelter from the Perspective of Human Rights

There is an increase in the number of street dwellers, the result of which is harassment, ultimately leading to them becoming liabilities to society. The right to livelihood was interpreted in the landmark Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation case. The eviction of the street dwellers was questioned in this case. This was a part of a beautification drive that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has undertaken. The court held that Article 21, 39(a), and 41 are fundamental. It further held that the Right to Livelihood has a nexus with and is an integral part of the right to life, and the state shall not interfere with anyone’s right. If it is inevitable, the onus is on the state to provide for alternate means. 

Despite the court’s ruling in this case, several street vendors are subjected to torture and eviction to this day. Right to Livelihood is a quintessential part of Article 21. The actions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation even currently are violative of this right.  Article 11 of The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that the parties to the covenant should recognise the right to a standard of living which includes food, clothing, and housing. Additionally, it also mandates that there should be a continuous improvement in living conditions. This emphasis on the right to a good standard of living for all humans is indicative of the gravity of its importance.

Right to Privacy

The initial concept of the Right to Privacy emerged in Justice Subba Rao's dissenting view in Kharak Singh v State of UP, where he broadly interpreted "personal liberty." More recently, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right in KS Puttaswamy v Union of India. This aligns with the understanding of the Right to Shelter, which also arises from the connection between Articles 19 and 21. The Supreme Court further highlighted that privacy is essential to the Right to live with dignity, including the right to be free from interference. Despite such repeated observations, a lot of individuals still face challenges such as experiencing homelessness, again pointing to the infringement of their fundamental rights. 

Implementation

There are no statutory provisions to provide this particular right to the citizens of India. This particular right is a product of the interpretation of the existing statutes by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Articles 39(a) and 41 require the state to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood. A number of schemes over the years have been brought about by the Government of India to ensure affordable housing to all. The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) etc, are such schemes which are being implemented. While the PMAY has had successes, the quality and amenities are questionable. As of 2023, 8.5 million houses have been completed, which is commendable. However, as per a Controller and Auditor General report, the quality of construction, basic amenities such as water, sanitation etc, are unavailable and there has been a delay in achieving the set target due to bureaucratic processes. 

Potential Challenges

There has been rapid urbanisation over the past decade, leading to excessive pressure on existing urban infrastructure. This rate is not proportional to the rate at which suitable accommodation is being provided. The number of street dwellers in urban areas increases as a result of this, leading to the problems highlighted earlier. India’s problem in this regard extends to inefficient implementation of the existing policies. The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana set a deadline in 2015, which failed to reach the target even in August 2022, and ultimately extended the deadline. The newly built houses under this scheme were poorly constructed, according to the Controller and Auditor General Report.

Way Forward

The best way forward would be to implement a Right to Housing Act in line with South Africa’s Right to Housing Act, which is guaranteed to every citizen. Additionally, the government is also held accountable in the case of a violation. Since India is one of the rapidly growing economies, private players will play a key role in ensuring housing for everyone. The Chennai Smart City project has been fairly successful in ensuring good housing. More such projects will surely benefit the nation and subsequently the economy. The Tiny House Movement was started in the United States in the 1990s and has become popular around the world over the years. These houses are small, affordable, and sometimes eco-friendly. The poor benefited massively from this movement. Given the huge and ever–increasing population and restricted land space, implementation of this through the Right to Housing Act is the way to go. The final word on what action can be taken to ensure affordable housing in rural areas rests with the legislature. The judiciary has, over time, widened the interpretation of aforementioned articles of the constitution to ensure that the penurious citizens lead a dignified life. Framing of suitable policies and statutes should ultimately be undertaken by the state and union legislature with the support of the judiciary.  The successful implementation of any policy or scheme depends on the awareness of it by the ultimate beneficiaries. The rural migrant population needs to be educated on these aspects. As far as developing countries like India are concerned, bridging this information gap is quintessential to effectively implement policies that ultimately protect the right to shelter.