Right To Government Accomodation Does Not Come Under Right To Shelter: Supreme Court

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• After his retirement as an Intelligence Bureau officer in Delhi, on 31.10. 2006, Onkar Nath Dhar, a Kashmiri migrant requested the Government to allow him to stay in the allotted house on a nominal license fee till the circumstances at Jammu and Kashmir improve.
• Proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971, were initiated against him.
• He challenged this before the Faridabad District Court, which later got rejected.
• Then relying upon the judgement in J L Koul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Supreme Court, allowed his plea stating that, it was not possible for him to return to his own State.

THE APPEAL

• The Centre appealed before the Apex Court, challenging the High Court’s judgement.
• It relied upon Lok Prahari (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 and Lok Prahari (II) v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 and other Supreme Court cases.
• Dhar placed his reliance upon Delhi High Court judgements like Union of India and Ors v. Vijay Mam.
• In this case, it was observed that it is the primary duty and responsibility of the national authorities to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to the people who are internally displaced inside their jurisdiction.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT

• Referring to the above-mentioned judgements, the Court agreed with the Centre’s stand that Government cannot allot a residence to a person who had demitted office.
• The Bench followed the directions issued in J. L. Kaul that the retirees can continue to have the possession of the accommodation as it was a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• The Court held that Government accommodation is only for those people who are in-service and not for the retired officers or those who have demitted office.
• Therefore, while setting aside the judgement of the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Bench held that their order was erroneous based on compassion that showed to displaced persons on account of terrorist activities in the State.
• No matter how genuine the comparison is, that does not give a retired person the right to continue occupying a government accommodation.
• Moreover, it stated that there is no policy provided by the Central or State Government to accommodate the displaced people on the account of terrorism in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
• Thus, State should not be burdened to provide alternative governmental accommodation to the people who face individual hardships.
• The right to shelter does not include the right to provide government accommodation.

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ABOUT IT?