Authors Name: Adhish Saxena & Diksha Gupta

College: University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun


Housing and living conditions for the majority of Indians in rural and urban areas are inadequate. The acute shortage of affordable housing; inadequate access to basic services; the absence of legal security of tenure over housing and land; and, forced evictions and displacement, are grave issues heartwarming the urban and rural poor athwart the country. In the absence of government schemes for social housing for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low Income Groups (LIG) in India, the national urban housing shortage for the Eleventh Five-Year Plan period (2007–2012) was estimated to be 26.53 million.[1] For the Twelfth Five-Year Plan period (2012–2017), the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage (2012–2017) has estimated that the national urban housing shortage is 18.68 million dwelling units, of which the estimated housing shortage for EWS households is 10.49 million while for LIG households it is 7.36 million.[2] The total rural housing shortage for the Eleventh Five-Year Plan period (2007– 2012) was projected at 47.43 million,[3] while for the Twelfth Five-Year Plan period (2012-2017) it is estimated to be 43.7 million, of which 90% is for below poverty line (BPL) families.[4] Given the acute housing deficit in the country, millions are forced to live in grossly inadequate conditions in sub-standard housing, including in slums / informal settlements. The National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007, acknowledges that “Quality of housing stock in slums is extremely poor. An important reason for this is insecurity of tenure.”[5] According to the Census of India 2011, around one out of every six households in urban India (17.4%) lives in an informal settlement (slum), while the total number of people living in informal settlements was estimated to be 65 million in 2011. While the Government of India does not have any official data on forced evictions and displacement, civil society organizations have estimated that since independence (1947), at least 65-70 million people have been displaced in India, as a result of such ‘development’ projects.

While movements such as the ‘right to the city’ have increased awareness on human rights and the need to build more inclusive, equitable and sustainable cities and villages, the reality across India is, unfortunately, one that continues to discriminate against the rural and urban poor.


While most of the world lives in some type of abiding, around a large portion of the total populace despises every one of the qualifications fundamental for housing to be viewed as sufficient. It has been entrenched in global human rights law and its understanding that housing isn't only a physical structure of four rooftops and a divider. Besides, sufficient housing isn't just a coveted objective; it is a fundamental human right of every single human being. This has been attested by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which perceives the privilege to sufficient housing as a vital segment of the human appropriate to a satisfactory way of life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states, in Article 25.1, that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.[6]

On the premise of the arrangements set up in UDHR, the human appropriate to satisfactory housing was expounded and reaffirmed in 1966 by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which in Article 11.1 announces that:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.[7]

The extent of the human appropriate to satisfactory housing, as ensured by Article 11.1 of ICESCR, was explained by the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its General Comment 4 on 'The right to sufficient housing'[8] The Committee set up that with the end goal for housing to be sufficient, it must, at the very least, incorporate the accompanying seven center components:

  • Legal security of tenure
  • Availability of services
  • Affordability
  • Habitability
  • Accessibility
  • Location
  • Cultural adequacy

The human appropriate to sufficient housing is consequently necessary to the acknowledgment of the privilege to live with respect and is inseparably connected to other human rights, for example, the rights to work/employment, well-being, nourishment, water, land, training, and security of the home and individual.


The act of forced evictions includes the automatic expulsion of people from their homes or arrive, straightforwardly or in a roundabout way owing to the state. The privilege not to be persuasively expelled is a component of the human appropriate to sufficient housing.[9]

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights characterizes forced eviction as the:

Permanent or temporary removal against the will of individuals, families or communities from their homes or land, which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.[10]

The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement (2007)[11] further extended the meaning of forced evictions to mean:

Acts and / or omissions involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups and communities from homes and / or lands and common property resources that were occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating or limiting the ability of an individual, group or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling, residence or location, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.

The UN additionally has tended to the issue of forced evictions in Resolution 1993/77[12] and Resolution 2004/28[13] of the Human Rights Commission. In Resolution 2004/28, the Commission perceived that:

The often violent practice of forced eviction involves the coerced and involuntary removal of persons, families, and groups from their homes, lands and communities, whether or not deemed legal under prevailing systems of law, resulting in greater homelessness and inadequate housing and living conditions.


Human rights will be rights innate to every single human being, whatever our nationality, place of habitation, sex, national or ethnic inception, shading, religion, dialect, or some other status. We are largely similarly qualified for our human rights without segregation. These rights are altogether interrelated, reliant and resolute.

These rights are key to each human being yet at the same time there are a few events of human rights infringement in India which make a requirement for some expert to control such issues. In India, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is the expert in charge of managing such issues. In any case, the circumstance is disturbing and human rights infringement is a genuine issue which needs quick activity. Issues like child work, share, harassment, rape, working environment misuse, and custodial passings have turned into a regular illicit relationship.


United Nations Human Rights Commission Resolutions 1993/77 and 2004/28 affirmed that forced evictions violate human rights. In Resolution 1993/77,[14] the UN Human Rights Commission stated that “The practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular, the right to adequate housing.”

 When forced evictions are carried out, they violate a range of internationally recognized human rights. These include the:

  • Human right to adequate housing;
  • Human rights to security of the person, and security of the home;
  • Human right to health;
  • Human right to food;
  • Human right to water;
  • Human right to work/livelihood;
  • Human right to education;
  • Human right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment;
  • Human right to freedom of movement;
  • Human right to information; and,
  • Human right to participation and self-expression.

The authorities doing forced evictions particularly damage individuals' privileges to the security of residency and flexibility from forced evictions; access to, and advantage from, open merchandise and enterprises; data, limit and limit building; cooperation and self-articulation; rights to resettlement and satisfactory remuneration for infringement and misfortunes; and physical security and protection. As a result of forced evictions, individuals are regularly left destitute and down and out, without methods for acquiring a business, and with no successful access to legal or different cures. Forced evictions are regularly connected with physical and mental wounds to those influenced, with particular effects on ladies, children, people effectively living in outrageous destitution, indigenous people groups, minorities and other underestimated groups. Indian case law has additionally perceived the infringement of human rights innate in the demonstration of forced evictions. The High Court of Delhi, for the situation Sudama Singh and Others v. Administration of Delhi and Anr.[15] plainly expressed:

  1. The dissent of the advantage of the recovery to the candidates abuses their entitlement to protect ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution. In these conditions, an expulsion of their jhuggies[16] without guaranteeing their migration would add up to net infringement of their Fundamental Rights.
  2. (…) What regularly is ignored is that when a family living in a jhuggi is persuasively removed, every part loses a "package" of rights – the privilege to job, to shield, to wellbeing, to instruction, to access to urban courtesies and open transport or more all, the privilege to live with pride.

On account of P.K. Koul and Ors. versus Domain Officer and Anr.[17] the High Court of Delhi likewise expressed that:

  1. (…) execution of the risk of coercive eviction would result disregarding the principal and essential human rights of the applicant. Experience and cases possess large amounts of this city and the aforenoticed legal points of reference of coercive evictions identifying with ghettos and jhuggi occupants. Helpless and hindered residents are coercively expelled from their asylums which are then pulverized.
  2. (… )The UN Commission on Human Rights has unequivocally expressed that forced evictions are a gross infringement of human rights. The International Community has since quite a while ago perceived forced eviction as a genuine issue and it has been accounted for over and again that freedom operations should happen just when protection plans and restoration are not plausible, migration measures stand made. Joined Nations Human Rights Commission Resolution 2004/28, perceived the arrangements on forced evictions contained in the Habitat Agenda of 1996,[18] and suggested that, "All Governments ensure that any eviction that is generally considered legal is completed in a way that does not disregard any of the human rights of those evicted."[19]



Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) has built up an 'eviction affect evaluation tool'[20] that expands on the necessity in the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement for 'eviction affect appraisals' to be directed before the conclusion and authorize of any task. HLRN has built up the modalities for directing such 'effect on affect evaluations.'


A PIL is an appeal to that can be driven by an individual from the general population for any matter of open enthusiasm, for review of open wrong or damage. In cases identified with forced evictions, any influenced individual may approach a legal counselor to present an appeal to in-state high courts or lower courts for any damage caused as a result of such evictions.

A Writ Petition might be recorded by a distressed person to look for legal solutions for infringement of crucial rights. As per the Constitution of India, the appeal to can be recorded under Article 226 under the steady gaze of a High Court or under Article 32 under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court of India.


  1. Organise open hearings/individuals' tribunals
  2. Organise road plays and music occasions


The Indian Constitution ensures exceptional arrangements for the protection, instruction, and work for socially underestimated groups while giving them modest and moderate homes. Notwithstanding, these enactments and open projects can be more important just if upheld by satisfactory human rights training and open mindfulness. There are sufficient systems for the protection of the housing rights in India, in any case, government lack of concern towards housing rights strategy execution, wild defilement in broad daylight offices, uncouth police, and developing police– mafia nexus is thwarting the laws from taking its own course. Over the top postponement of the legal procedure and costly legal counselors influenced the equity to distant for the basic man. What's more, unequal social structure (station framework) has made the circumstance from awful to more regrettable. High society individuals in agreement with police and lawmaker have conveyed many forced/destroyed homes without being rebuffed.

Indeed, even some of the time, judges are not by any means steady while administering the judgment in the instances of housing rights. The nearness of a flourishing common society and group of NGO, for example, PVCHR, continue mounting weight on open delegates, framing of popular conclusion and preparation on housing rights consequently helping individuals to use those protection components for their assistance.

[1] Report of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, Technical Group on Estimation of Urban Housing

Shortage, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. Available at:

[2] Report of the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage (TG-12) (2012 - 2017), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, page 51. Available at:

[3] Report of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, Working Group on Rural Housing, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Available at:

[4] Report of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, Working Group on Rural Housing, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Available at:

[5] National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, paragraph 1.15. Available at:

[6] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly Resolution 217A (III), November 1948. Available at:

[7] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), December 1966. Available at:

[8] General Comment 4, ‘The right to adequate housing (Art. 11.1 of the Covenant), United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1991. Available at:

[9] Fact Sheet No. 25, Forced Evictions and Human Rights, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at:

[10] General Comment 7, ‘The right to adequate housing (Art. 11.1 of the Covenant): forced evictions,’ United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1997. Available at:

[11] Presented in the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Miloon Kothari, A/HRC/4/18, February 2007. Available at: Translations in other languages available at: and

[12] United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1993/77, ‘Forced Evictions’, March 1993.

[13] United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/28, ‘Prohibition of Forced Evictions’, April 2004.

[14] United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1993/77, ‘Forced Evictions’, March 1993.

[15] W.P. (C) Nos. 8904/2009, 7735/2007, 7317/2009 and 9246/2009, High Court of Delhi, 11 February 2010.

[16] ‘Jhuggi’ is a Hindi word that refers to a house in an informal settlement.

[17] W.P. (C) No. 15239/2004 and CM No. 11011/2004, High Court of Delhi, 30 November 2010

[18] The Habitat Agenda, Istanbul Declaration on Human Settlements, June 1996. Available at:

[19] United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/28, ‘Prohibition of Forced Evictions’, April 2004.

[20] For more details on the ‘Eviction Impact Assessment Tool,’ please contact HLRN at: 011-2435-8492 /

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article or any other publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Sadvidya or its members.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: