‘We are a welfare state, can’t lose sight of it’: Delhi HC dismisses appeal by DDA against Jangpura slum rehabilitation
As per the single judge’s directions, the DDA had to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners as per its 2004 rehabilitation policy instead of the more recent Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015
On November 15, 2010, the HC had directed the DDA and DUSIB to carry out a survey to determine the eligibility of the slum dwellers for rehabilitation (Archive)
“Ultimately we are a welfare state, we can’t lose sight of it”, the Delhi High Court (HC) orally remarked on October 10 while dismissing an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against a court order that had directed the authority to rehabilitate 43 residents of a slum in Delhi’s Jangpura B.
The appeal was filed more than a year after the HC on September 17 last year had directed the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, while setting aside a decision of the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) and the DDA from January 30, 2015, denying the petitioners’ claim for relief.
As per the single judge’s directions, the DDA had to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioners as per its 2004 rehabilitation policy instead of the more recent Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015. The 2004 policy requires slum dwellers to have documentary proof of their existence at the site “prior to 31.01.1990 or post 1990 but before December 31, 1998, till date of removal”. The HC relief for the dwellers had come after 18 years since their dwellings were razed — on November 8, 2006 — by the MCD and DDA without prior notice or granting an opportunity for a hearing to the slum dwellers.
The appeal by the DDA opposed the dwellers’ consideration for rehabilitation under the 2004 policy, and had further submitted that “they were illegally squatting at the Jangpura drain and conducting hazardous, dangerous, large-scale, illegal commercial activity endangering safety of themselves and their surroundings”.
The DDA had further pointed out that under provisions of the 2004 policy, “no alternative plot shall be provided to such illegal occupants who are conducting purely commercial activity from their premises”.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, orally addressing the counsel for the DDA, remarked, “No evidence (that they were carrying out hazardous business)…What do you expect from ragpickers living in such jhuggis? … this is incidental to their residence there … Ultimately we are a welfare state, we can’t lose sight of it. Just tell us, which jhuggi is being used only for residence. The strata these people belong to, they’re rag pickers.”
While the DDA argued that even among commercial activities being carried out from slums “a differentiation has to be made between those selling milk” and those conducting “hazardous activities” and impressed that such a court order “will open gates for carrying out hazardous activities”, the division bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, countered: “Correct. For that there has to be a proper survey.”
Story continues below this ad
Notably, on November 15, 2010, the HC had directed the DDA and DUSIB to carry out a survey to determine the eligibility of the slum dwellers for rehabilitation. The petitioners had then appeared before the authorities with documents. However, in 2011, the authorities concluded that no survey could be conducted as the jhuggis, razed in 2006, did not exist at the site anymore.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
