Written by Dr. Shiva Satish
The Term ‘Right to City’ as presented by Henri Lefebvre in his book Le Droit à la Ville (1968) encompasses the notion of participative presence in the development process and legitimate access to resources of the city; It proposes that individuals, especially the ostracized, not just reserve the privilege to possess a city, but also have the option to configure, reshape and change it. The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III); under the slogan of ‘Right to the City, and Cities for All’ defines “the right of all inhabitants present and future, to occupy, use and produce just, inclusive and sustainable cities, defined as a common good essential to the quality of life.”
Nonetheless, lack of dwelling space, limited access to facilities of treated drinking water, sanitization, health care and education underlines the exacerbated demographic divide.
Constitution of India gives the citizens the right to choose their place of residence, and the right to free movement. However, absence of comprehensive development plan for slums is accelerating a spatial divide. The rapidly increasing interstate migration is adding to this divide. The Economic Survey by Government of India (2017) assessed inter-state migrant population of about 60 million and an inter-district migrant population as high as 80 million, from populated areas of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar to urbanised and industrialised states.
According to India Housing Report, around 100 million people are living in slums which is more than the population of Australia. According to world charter on Right to City, by 2050, 65% of the world population will reside in urban segments of the planet. This has impacted the social, financial, and civil rights not only of conventionally underprivileged clusters, but also of the moderately advantaged urban inhabitants.
The lockdown put the spotlight on legal protection granted to migrants by the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. When the question about migrant laborers welfare and the state wise record was raised before the parliament at the onset of the first lockdown; The government was in predicament over the issue and it was mentioned on record that no such data was available.
Adding to this dilemma; judicial interpretations on the issue are not clear. In 2019, ‘Right to City’ was recognized by Delhi High Court in Ajay Makan v. UOI, wherein unannounced demolition of jhuggis in Delhi was stayed by the Court. Conversely, in M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2020), the apex court ordered the removal of illegal encroachments on the railway tracks in the National Capital Region. Also, in Sarina Sarkar v. State of Haryana (2021) the apex Court directed the removal of “all encroachments”, including more than 10,000 residential constructions from Haryana.
Although government schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), 2015 have been made to address lack of urban housing, the promise to give a pucca house to all qualified metropolitan families by 2022, is far from being met. It would be unfair to expect the schemes to do wonders in the absence of records and registration as ‘metropolitan slum dweller’. The promising data postulated by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs on the completion of 7 years of urban housing scheme enunciates the endeavors of the Central Government to provide a viable solution to this situation. It has been claimed that out of 122.69 lakh houses sanctioned, 61.04lakhs houses have been completed at a total investment of 8.31 lakh crore.
It is important to restructure existing urban local bodies so that they focus on housing and employment of slum dwellers for a crime and congestion- free city. The “right to the city” must be implemented in spirit for a secure and progressive ecosystem.
(The writer is Assistant Professor of Law, RGNUL, Punjab)
