Environmental Protection and Right of Slum Dwellers to Housing – delicate balance
While upholding the validity of Regulation 17(3)(D(a) of DCPR 2034 permitting slum rehabilitation on lands reserved for public open spaces provided at least 35 % of the land is retained as accessible green space, it was held that the regulation is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has addressed two pressing urban challenges – encroachments and need for humane rehabilitation.
However, the strict safeguards are mandated that the 35% open space must be clearly demarcated and developed as a public amenity, it should be handed over to BMC in 90 days of project completion and a monitoring cell must ensure compliance as also to address violations.
The High Court has made it clear that the slum dwellers do not have absolute right to in-situ rehabilitation on reserved land and the State’s policy to balance competing interests is within the legislative competence.
The High Court has retained jurisdiction and powers for compliance review so that the policy is not used a free pass to reduce open spaces indiscriminately.
In essence, the judgment affirms that urban planning must be both humane and ecologically responsible—a message that resonates deeply in cities like Mumbai where land is scarce and stakes are high
Judgment dated 19.6.2025 of the High Court of Bombay (OS) in Writ Petition NO.1152 of 2002 of NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others with connected matters
