Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court 

The Delhi High Court has upheld the relocation of slum dwellers from clusters situated in the high-security Race Course area near the Prime Minister’s residence, holding that the State’s requirement for land to strengthen defense infrastructure takes precedence over in-situ rehabilitation. The dispute pertained to residents of Bhai Ram Camp, DID Camp, and Masjid Camp, located in the Race Course area.

The Court clarified that while the right to shelter is a fundamental guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it does not entitle residents to remain on public land that is strategically vital for national security, provided an adequate alternative is provided. It noted that the rehabilitation process must ensure a transition to a life of dignity, mandating that the relocation site at Savda Ghevra be equipped with essential socio-economic amenities.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed, “The Court thus, finds that, considering contemporary geopolitical events, national security concerns of the respondents satisfy as specific reasons for eviction of the petitioners. The Court ought not to be too eager to interfere with such executive policy decisions…”.

Advocate Pankaj Sinha appeared for the petitioner and Chetan Sharma, ASG appeared for the respondent.

The petitioners challenged eviction notices issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), arguing that their displacement would uproot them from their workplaces and schools. The Union of India contended that the land was essential for time-bound defense infrastructure projects due to its sensitive proximity to the Prime Minister's residence and other strategic installations.

The petitioners initially obtained a stay on the evictions in November 2025. Subsequently, a High-Powered Committee and the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) coordinated a rehabilitation plan. Despite the petitioners’ objections regarding the distance of the relocation site, the Court found that the statutory requirements for alternative allotment had been met after a comprehensive eligibility survey.

The Court held that the petitioners, as unauthorised occupants on public land, could not claim a vested right to occupy the specific site in perpetuity. It noted that the strategic importance of the Race Course area justified the relocation.

However, the Court relied on the DUSIB Protocol to hold that the State is duty-bound to provide adequate and reasonable shelter, which includes ensuring that the relocation does not result in a total loss of access to healthcare, transport, and education.

“The petitioners have fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These rights are intricately connected to the fundamental right to life and any violation of one of them would generally entail violation of all of them. However, their mere eviction and rehabilitation at alternative accommodation would not violate the said rights as long as the interests of the petitioners are secured as per the mandate of DUSIB Policy and Protocol”, the Bench noted.

The Court disposed of the petitions with the following operative directions: the respondents were directed to strictly comply with the DUSIB Protocol by ensuring functional schools, water, and transport facilities at Savda Ghevra. The petitioners must obtain their allotment letters and vacate the Race Course area camps within fifteen days.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to approach the Court again should the authorities fail to provide the mandated amenities at the resettlement colony.

Cause Title: Khushnuma Khan and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4145)

Appearances:

Petitioners: Pankaj Sinha, Garima, Sunil Tiwari, Advocates.

Respondents: Chetan Sharma, ASG, Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC, and Anuj Chaturvedi, DUSIB, Nasreen Khatoon G.P, Muhammad Aamir Khan, Syed Abdur Rahman, Piyush Gupta CGSC, Atishay Jain, Vishesh Goel, Shrey Sharawat, SPC, Himanshu Sihag, Anuj Chaturvedi, Richa Dhawan, Yashita Jain, Meenakshi, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: