Supreme Court Seeks Reply Of Maharashtra Govt, Civic Body On Plea Against High Court Order On Slum Rehabilitation

While upholding the validity of a regulation on slum rehabilitation schemes, the Bombay High Court on June 19, 2025 delivered a landmark verdict aimed at balancing Mumbai’s desperate need for green cover with the constitutional right to shelter.

It had upheld the validity of Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034.

The regulation permitted implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes on lands originally reserved for parks, gardens, and playgrounds, provided a portion is restored to the public.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions of Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for those who had filed the PIL in the high court, and issued notices to the state government, slum rehabilitation authority, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and others.

The senior lawyer assailed the verdict of the High Court saying that open public spaces in Mumbai needed to be safeguarded.

The bench asked Divan, representing NGO Alliance For Governance and Renewal (NAGAR), Neera Punj and Nayana Kathpalia, the petitioners before the High Court, to serve the copy of the petition and the notices to the standing counsel for an early adjudication of the case.

The High Court bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar had dismissed the plea filed by NAGAR, formerly known as CitiSpace.

However, while upholding the law, the High Court issued a stringent 17-point mandate to ensure that the promised open spaces do not remain mere "paper parks" but become functional, accessible public amenities.

The petitioners had challenged the regulation, arguing that allowing construction on up to 65 per cent of reserved open spaces "legalizes encroachment" and violates the "Public Trust Doctrine".

They highlighted that Mumbai’s per capita open space is alarmingly low, less than one square metre per person, in many areas.

Rejecting the argument that the policy is a "reward for encroachment", the High Court held that it represents a "constitutional equilibrium".

The bench had noted that these plots are currently 100 per cent occupied by slums and are unusable by the general public.

"The Constitution does not ask us to protect the environment by ignoring other rights, but to protect the environment alongside those rights (the right to shelter), in a way that respects both nature and human dignity," the High Court had said.

It characterised the 65:35 trade-off, where 35 per cent of the land is reclaimed as a public park and 65 per cent is used to house the urban poor, as a "practical and proportionate" solution.

The High Court emphasized that its approval is contingent on the strict implementation of safeguards.

To prevent developers from creating unusable "fragments" of land, the High Court had issued directions including that the 35 per cent reserved open space must be in one continuous stretch and not scattered into unusable bits.

It had said these public spaces cannot be fenced off or restricted to the residents of the rehabilitation buildings and they must remain open to the general public.

The High Court had said the land must be developed with standard features like jogging tracks, landscaping, and play equipment before being handed over to the MCGM.

It had said the state must ensure that no new encroachments occur on reserved lands after the notification.

The litigation in the High Court began in 2002, challenging a 1992 policy that allowed redevelopment on reserved sites if they were 25 per cent encroached.