Shelter is one of the most basic human needs, alongside food, clothing, and healthcare. It provides security, dignity, and the foundation for exercising other rights. In India, with its vast population and rapid urbanization, access to adequate housing remains a pressing issue. Millions continue to live in slums, on pavements, or in temporary shelters without access to sanitation, electricity, or water. The problem is not just economic but also legal and constitutional. Over the years, the Indian judiciary has recognized the right to shelter as an inseparable component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. While the State has enacted welfare schemes and housing programs, enforcement and access remain uneven.
This article traces the evolution of the right to shelter in India, examining constitutional provisions, judicial precedents, and ongoing challenges in balancing development, eviction, and human dignity.
Constitutional Foundations
The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the right to shelter. However, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and courts have consistently interpreted “life” to mean more than mere existence. A life with dignity includes access to basic human needs such as health, education, livelihood, and shelter.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) reinforce this view. Article 39 requires the State to ensure that material resources are distributed to serve the common good. Article 47 directs the State to raise living standards and improve public health. Article 46 mandates promotion of the weaker sections of society. Though not enforceable, these principles guide constitutional interpretation, and courts have often read them into Article 21 to recognize socio-economic rights.
Judicial Recognition of the Right to Shelter
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in expanding the scope of Article 21.
In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990), the Supreme Court explicitly held that the right to life includes the right to have a reasonable accommodation. The Court emphasized that shelter is not just a roof over one’s head, but includes facilities necessary for human development such as electricity, sanitation, and a clean environment.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court dealt with the eviction of pavement dwellers in Mumbai. Though the judgment allowed the State to remove encroachments, it recognized that eviction without rehabilitation deprived people of livelihood and dignity, which form part of the right to life. This case established that even those living without legal title possess a right to life that includes protection against arbitrary eviction.
In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996), the Court reiterated that the right to shelter is part of Article 21. It clarified that shelter includes adequate living space, safe structures, and access to civic amenities. The judgment stressed that without shelter, other constitutional rights lose meaning.
In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997), the Court recognized the State’s obligation to provide rehabilitation to slum dwellers affected by eviction. It held that urban planning must balance development with the rights of vulnerable groups.
Together, these precedents affirm that the right to shelter is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21, and that the State has an obligation to provide housing or at least protect against arbitrary eviction.
Housing Policies and State Programs
Judicial recognition has been complemented by policy initiatives. The government has launched several schemes to address the housing crisis, including Indira Awaas Yojana, Rajiv Awaas Yojana, and the ongoing Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY), which aims to provide housing for all by 2022 (a target still not fully realized). These programs focus on affordable housing, slum redevelopment, and credit-linked subsidies.
Despite ambitious policies, implementation has faced hurdles. Land acquisition disputes, corruption, lack of funds, and bureaucratic delays limit the effectiveness of these schemes. Urban housing shortages remain severe, while rural housing often suffers from poor quality construction and lack of infrastructure.
Evictions and Development Projects
One of the most contentious aspects of the right to shelter is eviction for development projects. Infrastructure projects such as highways, railways, and urban renewal often displace large numbers of people. While the State argues that development serves the larger public interest, courts have insisted that displacement must be accompanied by fair rehabilitation.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court, in the context of the right to food, emphasized that socio-economic rights must be enforced meaningfully, and the State cannot evade responsibility by citing lack of resources. By extension, courts have applied similar reasoning to housing.
In Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (2010), the Delhi High Court held that slum dwellers cannot be evicted without rehabilitation. The judgment emphasized that housing policies must be inclusive and consistent with constitutional protections.
The challenge lies in balancing competing rights: the State’s duty to develop infrastructure and maintain public spaces versus the individual’s right to shelter and livelihood. Courts generally avoid halting development but stress that human dignity cannot be sacrificed.
Shelter for Vulnerable Groups
Women, children, migrant workers, and persons with disabilities are disproportionately affected by lack of shelter. Homeless children face exploitation and denial of education, while women without housing are more vulnerable to violence. The judiciary has recognized that socio-economic vulnerabilities require special protection. For instance, in PUCL v. Union of India, the Court directed the State to provide night shelters during winters for the homeless, affirming that the right to life includes protection against harsh weather.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted these vulnerabilities starkly. Migrant workers stranded without shelter or livelihood faced immense hardship. The Supreme Court intervened to direct State governments to provide temporary housing, food, and transport. This crisis reinforced that shelter is not a luxury but a lifeline.
Comparative Perspectives
Internationally, the right to housing is recognized as a human right under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which India has ratified. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has clarified that adequate housing includes security of tenure, availability of services, affordability, and cultural adequacy.
While many countries treat housing as a welfare issue, courts in South Africa and Brazil have gone further, enforcing it as a justiciable right. India’s judiciary has moved in a similar direction, though enforcement remains inconsistent.
Challenges in Realization
Despite constitutional recognition and judicial pronouncements, millions remain without adequate housing. Land scarcity in urban areas, rising property prices, and weak enforcement of welfare schemes perpetuate homelessness. Slum demolitions continue, often without adequate rehabilitation. The gap between legal ideals and ground reality is stark.
Corruption in housing schemes, lack of coordination between central and state agencies, and insufficient participation of local communities further weaken outcomes. Moreover, rapid urban migration means that the demand for affordable housing continues to outstrip supply.
Conclusion
The right to shelter in India stands at the intersection of law, policy, and social justice. The judiciary has been progressive in reading it into Article 21, declaring that a dignified life requires more than survival — it requires a home. Landmark judgments have established that shelter includes not just a roof but access to basic amenities and protection from arbitrary eviction. Government schemes reflect an intention to provide housing for all, but implementation gaps persist.
The challenge is to ensure that urban development and economic growth do not trample the rights of the vulnerable. Courts have repeatedly reminded the State that constitutional promises cannot remain on paper. For law students, the evolution of the right to shelter illustrates how socio-economic rights can be judicially enforced despite their absence from the text of fundamental rights. For citizens, it is a reminder that housing is not charity but a constitutional entitlement.
Ultimately, the right to shelter embodies the dignity of human existence. A nation aspiring for economic power cannot overlook the need to provide its citizens with a place they can call home. The test of democracy is not only in protecting freedoms of the powerful but also in ensuring that the weakest have the security of shelter.