Supreme Court Clarifies Beneficiaries in Public Interest Litigation on Slum Relocation: Sudama Singh & Ors. vs. Deepak Mohan Spolia & Ors. (2017) INSC 1038 (12 December 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 12 December 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 1038
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J.
Can a High Court limit the benefits of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) judgment to only the petitioners, excluding other affected parties named in the petition? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the relocation of slum dwellers in Delhi. The Court clarified that in a PIL, benefits should extend to all affected parties identified in the petition, not just the original petitioners. This judgment emphasizes the inclusive nature of PILs and ensures that the relief granted reaches all those intended to benefit. The bench comprised Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Amitava Roy.

Case Background

The case originated from four Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the High Court of Delhi. These petitions sought the relocation and rehabilitation of slum dwellers from various slum clusters in Delhi, particularly those affected by the demolition of their ‘jhuggies’ (hutments). The petitioners argued that the demolitions were carried out without adequate rehabilitation, violating their fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also referred to the Rehabilitation and Improvement Scheme for Jhuggi Clusters, 2000, framed by the Delhi Government and the Master Plan for Delhi-2021. Specifically, the petitioners in one of the PILs stated that their jhuggies in New Sanjay Camp Slum Cluster were demolished on 05.02.2009 by the Public Works Department (PWD) for the construction of an underpass, without providing alternative accommodation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi initially disposed of the PILs on 11.02.2010, directing the government to consider the cases of the petitioners for relocation as per the existing policy. The High Court declared that the decision of the respondents holding that the petitioners are on the “Right of Way” and are, therefore, not entitled to relocation, is illegal and unconstitutional. The Court also directed that eligible petitioners be granted alternative sites within four months, in consultation with them. However, the judgment was not fully implemented, leading the original petitioners to file contempt petitions in the High Court. In the contempt proceedings, the High Court clarified that the benefits of the original judgment were limited only to the actual writ petitioners and not to other affected persons mentioned in the annexures to the writ petitions. The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case primarily involves the interpretation of the High Court’s judgment in light of the principles of public interest litigation and the fundamental right to shelter. The petitioners invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life, arguing that this includes the right to shelter. The High Court judgment dated 11.02.2010 also referred to the extant policy for relocation of jhuggi dwellers.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court erred in limiting the benefits of its judgment to only the original writ petitioners. They contended that the PILs were filed on behalf of all the residents of the New Sanjay Camp Slum Cluster and other similar clusters, whose names were provided in the annexures to the writ petitions. The appellants submitted that the intent of the High Court’s judgment was to provide relief to all affected persons, not just the named petitioners.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the High Court’s interpretation was correct, and the benefits should be confined to the actual petitioners. However, the Additional Solicitor General also conceded that the eligibility of the persons referred to in the Annexures will have to be verified, as indicated by the Court in direction No.3 of the High Court’s judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in limiting the benefits of its judgment dated 11.02.2010 to only the original writ petitioners, or whether the benefits should extend to all affected persons whose names were provided in the annexures to the writ petitions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to life, which includes the right to shelter.
• Principles of Public Interest Litigation: The Court emphasized that PILs are meant to benefit a class of persons and not just the petitioners.

Judgment

The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s judgment was intended to benefit all affected persons identified in the writ petitions, not just the original petitioners. The Court emphasized that in a public interest litigation, the benefits should extend to all members of the affected class, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.

The Court stated, “It is not required that in a public interest litigation all the affected parties should be petitioners. It is a well-accepted principle of class litigation.”

The Supreme Court further noted, “In the facts of the present case, the petitioners have actually furnished the names of persons who have been identified as the persons affected. Hence the High Court ought to have extended the benefit to those persons whose names have also been furnished by way of annexures to the writ petitions and for whose benefits the High Court has rendered the judgment dated 11.02.2010.”

The Court also observed that, “The eligibility of the persons referred to in the Annexures will have to be verified and that is what is precisely indicated by the Court in direction No.3 to the effect that the benefit should be available to those eligible persons in terms of the relocation policy.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of public interest litigation and the fundamental right to shelter. The Court emphasized that PILs are meant to benefit a class of persons, not just the individual petitioners. The Court also highlighted the fact that the names of the affected persons were provided in the annexures to the writ petitions, which indicated that the High Court’s judgment was intended to benefit all those persons.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ In Public Interest Litigations, the benefits of a judgment should extend to all affected parties identified in the petition, not just the original petitioners.
• ✓ The right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• ✓ The eligibility of affected persons for relocation should be verified as per the relevant policy.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the inclusive nature of PILs and ensures that relief reaches all those intended to benefit.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to implement the High Court’s judgment in light of the clarification provided by the Supreme Court. The implementation was to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a public interest litigation, the benefits of a judgment should extend to all affected persons whose names are furnished in the petition, subject to verification of their eligibility. This clarifies the scope of beneficiaries in PILs and ensures that the relief is not limited to the original petitioners. This case reinforces the inclusive nature of PILs and ensures that relief reaches all those intended to benefit. This is a reiteration of the existing position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that the benefits of a judgment in a Public Interest Litigation should extend to all affected persons identified in the petition, not just the original petitioners. This decision ensures that the intent of PILs to benefit a larger class of people is upheld. The Court directed the respondents to implement the High Court’s judgment in light of this clarification within three months.