“Surplus Humanity” and the Margins of Legality - Chapman University

Do Not Delete 12/12/2010 7:34 PM
42 Chapman Law Review [Vol. 14:1
reminded the government of the plans for slum upgrading and
low-income housing. 275
In another decision, announced on the same day as the
Pavement Dweller‘s Case, the Supreme Court mandated that
alternative housing must be provided before evictions can take
place, accepted a governmental assurance that ―steps are being
taken for the purpose of improving the slums and wherever they
cannot be improved, alternative accommodation is provided to
the slum-dwellers‖ and expressed confidence that ―the government
will continue to evince the same dynamic interest in the
welfare of the pavement dwellers and slum-dwellers.‖ 276 In 1990,
the Supreme Court went a step further to state that ―reasonable
residence is an indispensible necessity‖ for human development
and the fulfillment of the ―right to life.‖ 277 In 1996, the Court
argued that the ―right to life guaranteed in any civilized society
implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education,
medical care and shelter,‖ and held that Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution held within its ambit the right to shelter in order to
make the right to life more meaningful. 278 The Court read the
constitution in the light of all civil, political, social, and cultural
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
to hold that ―[s]helter for a human being . . . is not a mere
protection of his life and limb. It is a home where he has
opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and
spiritually.‖ 279 In 1997, the Court defined human rights to
include everyone‘s ―right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and wellbeing of himself and his family; it includes food,
clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services.‖ 280
It held that the right to life is not confined to physical existence
but includes the right to live with human dignity. 281 Other
decisions continued to push the frontiers of fundamental rights to
include, for example, the right to education, 282 the right to heath
and medical care, 283 and
275 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Mun., (1985) 1 S.C.C. 545 (India).
276 K. Chandru v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1985) 3 S.C.C. 536 (India), available at
http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/citation1.aspx.
277 Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Gotame, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 630, 634
(India).
278 Chameli Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1051, 1053 (India).
279 Id.
280 Ahmedabad Municipal Corp. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 152,
158 (India).
281 Id. See generally Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R 1981 S.C. 746 (India).
282 Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1858, 1864–92 (India). See
also J. P. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2178 (India),
available at http://www. Indiankanoon.org/doc/1775396/.
283 Consumer Educ. & Research Ctr. v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 940 (India).