Sanitation is a right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution
Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civil amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation,“ so said the Supreme Court in a famous verdict delivered way back in 1995 while discussing the issue of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.In legal circles, the verdict is known as Chameli Singh and Others versus State of UP and the judgement was delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in December 1995. Sanitation in the above mentioned observation would include toilets.
It was this judgement which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court in December last year while asking the Mumbai's civic body to supply water to “illegal slums“ slums which have come up after the State's cutoff date of January 1, 2000.
The HC, however, did attach a rider saying: “Even if the water is provided to a person occupying an illegal hut, the same does not create any equity in such person or the same does not make lawful the structure occupied by such person which is otherwise illegal. It is obvious that the water supply to an occupant of such an illegal hut does not affect the illegal nature of the hut.“
The division bench led by Justice Abhay Oka was hearing a public interest petition filed by a non-governmental organisation Pani Haq Samiti challenging a circular issued by the State government saying that local authorities should not supply water to unauthorised constructions.
The State had argued before the HC that not supplying water to illegal shanties was justified “as the State does not want to encourage the construction of such illegal slums and people occupying such illegal slums.“ The court, however, observed that there could be various reasons for the slums to come up, one of which could be neglect on the part of the authorities responsible to stop such shanties from coming up.
“There is a failure of all the concerned to prevent erection of slums in the city.There is a failure to take action against the illegal slums,“ the court observed against the concerned authorities. It then assailed the State, “The past conduct of the State gives a hope to those who occupy illegal slums that the same will be regularised by the State Government in future. Perhaps that may be the reason why people are occupying illegal slums with a hope that the State Government will come up with a new policy decision for their protection.“
While asking the authorities to provide water to slums erected after January 2000 the court observed, “We fail to understand as to how the authorities can commit violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that providing water supply to the occupants of the slums erected after January 1, 2000, will amount to encouraging to people to construct the slums or to occupy illegal slums.“
Source: Mumbai Mirror, 22-09-2015
It was this judgement which was relied upon by the Bombay High Court in December last year while asking the Mumbai's civic body to supply water to “illegal slums“ slums which have come up after the State's cutoff date of January 1, 2000.
The HC, however, did attach a rider saying: “Even if the water is provided to a person occupying an illegal hut, the same does not create any equity in such person or the same does not make lawful the structure occupied by such person which is otherwise illegal. It is obvious that the water supply to an occupant of such an illegal hut does not affect the illegal nature of the hut.“
The division bench led by Justice Abhay Oka was hearing a public interest petition filed by a non-governmental organisation Pani Haq Samiti challenging a circular issued by the State government saying that local authorities should not supply water to unauthorised constructions.
The State had argued before the HC that not supplying water to illegal shanties was justified “as the State does not want to encourage the construction of such illegal slums and people occupying such illegal slums.“ The court, however, observed that there could be various reasons for the slums to come up, one of which could be neglect on the part of the authorities responsible to stop such shanties from coming up.
“There is a failure of all the concerned to prevent erection of slums in the city.There is a failure to take action against the illegal slums,“ the court observed against the concerned authorities. It then assailed the State, “The past conduct of the State gives a hope to those who occupy illegal slums that the same will be regularised by the State Government in future. Perhaps that may be the reason why people are occupying illegal slums with a hope that the State Government will come up with a new policy decision for their protection.“
While asking the authorities to provide water to slums erected after January 2000 the court observed, “We fail to understand as to how the authorities can commit violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that providing water supply to the occupants of the slums erected after January 1, 2000, will amount to encouraging to people to construct the slums or to occupy illegal slums.“
Source: Mumbai Mirror, 22-09-2015
