One of the essential rights protected by Article 19(1)(e) read in conjunction with article 21 of the indian constitution is the right to shelter. Nonetheless, there are times when a person’s basic rights directly collide with the rights of the general public. Such a conflict is shown in the case of chameli singh vs state of up (1995), which serves as an example of how the court can settle it by taking a balanced approach that protects the rights of the community and the individual.
chameli singh vs state of up Case Facts
- Along with other lands, the lands in Plot No. 16 belonged to the appellants.
- The land was purchased to meet the housing requirements of the impoverished, Dalits, and tribes.
- On July 23, 1983, they received notification through publication in the State Gazette pursuant to Section 4 (1) of the land acquisition act 1894. At the same time, a declaration under Section 6 was published, obviating the need for the Section 5-A inquiry.
- There was a delay on the side of the officials to complete and publish the notification, both for the pre- and post-notification.
- As a result, the appellants contested the notification’s legality and filed a special leave petition with the Supreme Court.
chameli singh vs state of up Issues
- Whether the Act of 1894’s Section 17(4) emergency provision was appropriate for the government to use.
- Whether the government’s failure to promptly publish the accusation notification invalidated the use of the urgency provision.
- Whether the government’s purchase of the petitioner’s land will result in the denial of the right to subsistence guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution.
Contentions by the Parties
Appellants:
- It was argued that notification under Section 17(4) would be void since the lands are not arable or waste land.
- The appellants also argued that, notwithstanding the fact that the land was acquired to build homes for Scheduled Castes, it is not justified to forego the Section 5-A inquiry since there is no pressing need to take possession.
- The appellants further argued that conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A in all acquisitions made for housing purposes should be the norm and that doing otherwise should only be done in extraordinary circumstances, such as those covered by Section 17(2).
- In the end, the appellants contended that taking land through compulsory acquisition strips the landowner of his source of income, which is protected by article 21 of the indian constitution and cannot be taken away from him by depriving him of his means of subsistence, i.e., the land.
Respondent:
- The respondents acknowledged that the officers had delayed both before and after the notice was sent, but they contended in court that, as this court has said, the longer the delay, the more urgent the situation, and that, if the needs of the people are met, the action taken was warranted.
- The respondents further contended that the State would be spending money to improve the poor living conditions in which they reside by providing decent housing with better hygienic conditions, and that the officers’ indolence in providing pre- and post-notification delays would not invalidate the exercise of the authority to invoke the urgency clause on that basis.
- They further argued that the notification was lawful since the State had acquired the land through the exercise of its right to eminent domain for public purposes.
chameli singh vs state of up Judgment
- Within its ruling, the Court emphasized that the right to residence and settlement, as defined by Article 19(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution, was an essential component of the broader and unbreakable right to life as stated in Article 21.
- The Court acknowledged that the need to guarantee access to shelter was a global issue that affected many other nations, both developed and developing. It was not unique to India.
- The Court acknowledged that Dalits across the nation were facing increasingly difficult living conditions. The Court further argued that this kind of issue needed to be acknowledged by the courts right away. It made clear that these marginalized communities continued to endure difficult living circumstances throughout time.
- The Court agreed that, given the current state of affairs, action to improve the filthy and appalling housing conditions that Dalits, tribes, and the impoverished reside in was urgently needed.
- The Court declared that housing sites for economically disadvantaged people, Dalits, and tribes were both national necessities and constitutional obligations, and the urge to address these injustices persisted.
- Given these factors, the Court dismissed the appeal because it believed the contested notification had no legal flaws at all. Nevertheless, the Court chose not to charge the appellant costs after taking the facts into account.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
