- Maansi Sinha, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
ABSTRACT:
India’s Smart Cities Mission (SCM) initiative has ushered in a new phase of urban planning, infrastructural development, Technological innovation, sustainability, and efficient service delivery. However, in the name of development, the lives of the marginalized people are at stake. This article critically analyses the legal problems linked to the urban displacement of people under the SCM projects. It explores constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial precedents concerning housing and rehabilitation rights. It also pins India’s obligations within international human rights frameworks. This article underscores the urgent need for a rights-based approach to urban redevelopment through case studies and analysis of policy gaps. This piece concludes by advocating for urgent legal reforms to protect people’s fundamental rights and uphold the dignity of urban residents.
INTRODUCTION:
In 2015, India launched one of the most crucial flagship urban development initiatives, the Smart Cities Mission (SCM). It aims to promote sustainable and inclusive cities that provide citizens with remarkable infrastructure and decent living standards. It also aims to build 100 smart cities across India. The initiative focuses on area-based development, citizen-centric services, and digital integration. While this initiative is a symbol of development, it also exacerbates the problem of the displacement of marginalized communities. This article analyses the legal framework revolving around urban displacement in the context of the Smart Cities Mission, the tension between urban development and housing rights, and the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.
SMART CITIES MISSION:
The Smart Cities Mission aims to build 100 smart cities across the country. It focuses on sustainable development using digital technologies. The aim is to enhance infrastructure and services. This development also includes retrofitting, greenfield projects, and redevelopment. However, this approach only prioritises infrastructural development rather than the socio-economic realities of the existing populations in those areas, such as slum dwellers, urban poor, and migrant workers.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING DISPLACEMENT:
Urban displacement occurs due to land acquisition for infrastructural development or the clearance of informal settlements. Therefore, constitutional provisions and legislation have been enacted to safeguard the rights of the public.
- Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR, Act)
Provisions for fair compensation and transparency are made. The Act mandates consent, social impact assessments (SIAs), and rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) packages.
- The Constitution of India:
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Right to shelter is included within the umbrella of Article 21. Articles 38 and 39 are Directive Principles that aim to distribute resources equally and protect the marginalized sections of society.
- State-level Municipal and Development Authority Acts:
These statutes grant urban local bodies (ULBs) the power to undertake redevelopment.
However, these statutes and constitutional provisions are far from being implemented. The application is limited to urban areas where the land is vacated through eviction and is not formally acquired.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:
The smart city initiative often leads to informal and inadequate settlements, which are illegal and chaotic. It leads to forced evictions, inadequate rehabilitation, and the exclusion of the urban poor. There are many cases where precedents have been established. In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court held that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution recognizes the Right to Livelihood. In Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996), the Hon’ble Court held that the Right to Shelter is integral to the Right to Life. In another case of Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (2010), the court reinforced the need for rehabilitation before eviction. In Ajay Maken v. UOI (2019), the Delhi High Court reiterated the importance of procedural safeguards, including prior notice and alternate arrangements. In the Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (1996) case, the court reaffirmed that development must be parallel with public interest. In another important case of Sodan Singh v. NDMC (1989), the court upheld that balanced rights of street vendors with public interest. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000), the court upheld the displacement for development, however, demanded for proper rehabilitation.
CASE STUDIES:
Several case studies can be analyzed to determine the tensions between Urban Planning and Housing Rights:
- Ahmedabad Sabarmati Riverfront Development: A similar model was reflected in this project, where thousands of people were displaced from the banks without proper rehabilitation.
- Bhubaneswar Smart City Project: The project led to evictions in slums like Shantipally Basti and Mahisakhal, despite being a top-ranked smart city. The displaced people complained about the lack of prior consultation and poor rehabilitation in secluded areas.
- Mumbai Ghatkopar Slum Eviction: As a beautification initiative under the smart city, families were evicted with less than 48 hours’ notice, and no relocation support was provided.
- Delhi Kathputli Colony Eviction: To ensure smart redevelopment, over 2800 families of traditional puppeteers and artisans were evicted, and a year of insecurity ensued as the rehabilitation flats were delayed.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:
India is a signatory to various international human rights treaties and complies strictly with the international human rights standards. Therefore, India has to balance its urban development policies with international norms:
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):
Acknowledges the right to adequate housing and provides a safeguard from forced evictions.
- UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions (2007):
Highlights the importance of prior notice, meaningful consultation, remedies, and provision of alternative housing.
- Habitat Agenda (1996) & New Urban Agenda (2016):
Emphasises inclusive urban planning that incorporates informal settlements.
- General Comments on UN Committee on ESCR:
General Comment No. 4: Defines “adequate housing” to integrate access to facilities and security of tenure.
General Comment No. 7: Prohibits forced evictions without adequate safeguards.
POLICY GAPS AND THE WAY FORWARD:
- Urban Displacement Legislation: Reforms can be brought to mandate fair rehabilitation.
- Mandatory Social Impact Assessments: Social Impact Assessments can be made compulsory to ensure that the independent bodies are looked after.
- Use of Technology: Technology can be used to monitor displacements and ensure accountability.
- Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Displacement tribunals can be established to look after the eviction-related complaints.
- Training of Urban Authorities: Initiatives can be taken to sensitize officials and ensure rights-based planning and international obligations.
- Inclusive Urban Planning: Tools like community mapping and citizens’ audits can be incorporated.
CONCLUSION:
The Smart Cities Mission symbolises the goal towards technological and infrastructural modernization in the urban landscape of India. However, dispossession and exclusion must not be the result of development. Displacement without fair compensation, adequate legal safeguards, and proper rehabilitation facilities violates the fundamental rights of the citizens.
Stories from Delhi, Mumbai, Bhubaneswar, and other places in India reflect an unsettling pattern of state-led developmental projects. These displacements affect the urban poor population and exacerbate the existing inequalities. Though the courts have offered relief at times, the lack of enforceable statutory provisions and policy mechanisms dilutes the effectiveness of such interference.
It is needless to emphasise that India needs to adopt a rights-based and inclusive urban governance that does not compromise human dignity. This includes legislative reforms to frame laws preventing displacement of people in the name of ‘urban redevelopment,’ ensure grievance redressal, mandatory social impact assessments, and the inclusion of aggrieved communities at every stage of planning.
Technological innovations and urban redevelopment must go hand-in-hand with social justice. It does not only include mere digitalisation or attracting investment but one that upholds inclusiveness, equity, and democratic participation. As cities become the catalyst of national growth, it is important that development models be restructured in such a way that it leaves no one behind.
The legal and policy discourse must change to show an integrated vision, where urban development is not accomplished by excluding the poor but by planning with them and for them. By doing so, India will fulfil its developmental aspirations. In addition, it established a model for ethical and inclusive urbanization in the global South.
FAQs:
Q1. What is the Smart Cities Mission?
Ans. The SCM is a flagship initiative launched by the Government of India in 2015 to promote the sustainable redevelopment of urban cities. It includes using technology and data-driven governance to enhance the standard of living, service delivery, and infrastructure in 100 cities.
Q2. Are evictions ever justified under law?
Ans. Evictions can be justified if carried out for public interest projects, but they must comply with due process, ensure proper rehabilitation, and respect the rights of the people.
Q3. How can civil society support displaced communities?
Ans. Civil society can play a significant role in community mobilization, policy advocacy, legal aid, and rehabilitation practices to ensure accountability.
REFERENCES:
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549.
Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi, W.P.(C) 8904/2009, Delhi High Court.
Ajay Maken v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 11616/2015, Delhi High Court.
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622.
Sodan Singh v. NDMC, (1989) 4 SCC 155.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.
