1.

Whether the fundamental rights are violated by demolition of

building?
1.1 Right to life of workers working on site will be violated as they will be rendered unemployed

Right to life means “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to a procedure established by law.”

In Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that
Article 21 ’embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society’.
Further, Justice Iyer characterised Article 21 as ‘the procedural Magna Carta protective of life
and liberty’.

In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court quoted and held:
By the term ‘life’ as here used, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed.
The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or
the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the
soul communicates with the outer world.

Firm shutdown creates a turbulent situation for workers as it leads directly to layoffs for its
workers. An additional consideration is whether a firm’s shutdown within an industry creates
turbulence for workers at other continuing firms.
One of the most troubling factors of closing a business is knowing it means putting your staff
out of work. Losing a job is among the most stressful life events. It may even lead to mental or
physical health problems. These can be made worse by a loss of health insurance. Of course,
loss of regular pay can trigger economic and family issues

Loss of Pay- Losing a steady paycheck is a primary negative effect of business closure. For some
employees, the income of a spouse or partner may prevent the catastrophic economic effects of job loss.
For others, who may be living paycheck-to-paycheck, loss of income can lead to a lower standard of
living. Because unemployment insurance often provides far less money than an employee may have
been used to, trouble paying bills may result. The employee might end up losing his home.

Mental Impact- As soon as an employee hears of the business closure, the impending income loss may
become a constant worry. Fretting over how to pay the bills and keep up the usual lifestyle is almost a
reflex. The thought of telling a spouse and family about the loss can also be stressful. A study by the
State University of New York at Albany found that a person who lost his job through no fault of his
own had an 83 percent greater likelihood of ending up with stress-related psychiatric problems. The
involuntarily unemployed can feel scared, vulnerable, lonely. Feelings of uselessness and hopelessness
can ensue. Some even sink into depression.

Physical Effects- According to "The New York Times," layoffs can lead to physical health problems,
too. A 2006 Yale University study found that involuntary job loss increased older workers' risk of stroke
and heart attack by 200 percent. The SUNY-Albany study found an 83 percent greater likelihood of
developing stress-related diabetes or arthritis among people who had lost their jobs. A Columbia
University study concluded that men with high-seniority positions had a 50 to 100 percent greater risk
of death in the year after losing a job than employed men in similar positions.

Loss of Insurance- For many employees, especially those with children, losing health insurance is
another source of stress. However, being uninsured, particularly over long periods, can have effects of
its own. Because medical costs can be high, some are less likely to visit a doctor for preventive care, or
at the first sign of a problem. By the time they do seek help, the issue may have mushroomed into a
condition that requires expensive medication or surgery.

1.2 Right to life of those who booked the apartment in the two paired towers will
be violated as there right to shelter will be infringed due to a lack of house, even
though there money will be refunded but still they need to search for new home till
the time they didn’t find a shelter. As we know that the country is densely
populated and there is a high demand of houses, demolition will lead to shortage of
house and hence right to live with dignity is violated.

The Right to Shelter is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (e) read with Article
21 of the Constitution of India. In the landmark case of Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP it was held
that the right to shelter is a fundamental right and the State has a Constitutional duty to provide
house sites to the poor. Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani, who pronounced this path-breaking
judgment observed so while dismissing a PIL seeking eviction of four individuals who allegedly
encroached a public land. The weaker section of the society like the poor and landless
agricultural laborers have the basic human right and constitutional right to the residence. Thus, it
becomes a duty of the state to fulfil those. But it does not give any person the right to encroach
and erect structures or otherwise on footpaths, pavements or public space or at any place
reserved or earmarked for a public utility. The State has the Constitutional duty to provide
adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of life
and erection of shelter over their land to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful.

Shelter for human beings is not mere protection for life or limb, it provides opportunities to
human beings to grow physically, mentally, intellectually, and spiritually. The right to shelter
includes adequate space, safe and decent structure, decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air
and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities. The right to life guaranteed in any
civilized society implies the right to food, water, a decent environment, education, medical care,
and shelter.

The court for the first time held that “right to life includes right to livelihood and shelter” as they
both are important components of the right to life under Article 21. Further, in the case of State
of Karnataka and Ors v. Narasimhamurthy and Ors, the Supreme Court stated that: “Right to
shelter is a fundamental right To make the rights meaningful for the poor, the State has to
provide facilities and opportunities to build a house. Acquisition of the land to provide house
sites to the poor houseless is a public purpose as it is a constitutional duty of the State to provide
house sites to the poor.” All these judgments have expanded the ambit of Article 21 of our
Constitution and interpreted rights to the citizens for their growth, nourishment and shelter.
In UP Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited, the right to shelter has
been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured under
Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. The state has to provide
facilities and opportunities to build houses to make the right meaningful for the poor.

In Chameli Singh v. State of UP , a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had considered and
held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen. And the same was
read into Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, ‘right to shelter’ was considered encompassing the
right to life, making the latter more meaningful. The Court advanced: “Shelter for a human
being, therefore, is not mere protection of his life and limb. It is however where he has
opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter,
therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent
surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation, and other civic
amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter,
therefore, does not mean a mere right to a roof over one’s head but right to all the infrastructure
necessary to enable them to live and develop as a human being.

In another case of Sudama Singh and Others v. Government of Delhi and Anr, the High Court
of Delhi established that housing is a human right and it further laid down responsibilities of the
state towards fulfilling the right to housing and the right to resettlement. All these judgments,
therefore, reflect that shelter is not a mere place to live but also a place where one grows
mentally and physically. Right to shelter is an integral part of the social and economic justice and
is also a human right so it is the duty of the state to construct affordable houses for the needy.

The right to shelter is one of the most important fundamental rights which have been recognized.
It provides protection against forced evictions and the arbitrary destruction and demolition of
one’s home along with the right to be free from any kind of arbitrary interference with one’s
home, privacy and family. The Right to Shelter includes adequate living space, safe, decent
surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities.
The Right to Life guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent
environment, education, medical care and shelter