For thousands of slum dwellers, the decision transforms eviction from a moment of displacement into an opportunity for secure housing and social inclusion.
The decision of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Raju Sahu and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others is a significant judgment that directly engages with questions of poverty alleviation in urban India. Decided in 2024, the case arose from a large batch of writ petitions filed by slum dwellers of Akbar Nagar I and II in Lucknow, who challenged demolition orders issued by the Lucknow Development Authority.
While the immediate dispute concerned eviction and demolition, the judgment goes much deeper, addressing the constitutional right to shelter, the right to clean drinking water, and the State’s obligation to rehabilitate economically weaker sections humanely and sustainably. In balancing these competing rights, the High Court articulated a poverty-sensitive constitutional approach rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The relevance of this judgment lies in its positioning of poverty alleviation within the framework of constitutional adjudication. Urban poverty in India is often addressed through fragmented and ad hoc welfare measures, while evictions are justified on grounds of illegality or environmental necessity.
The Court recognised that slum dwellers, though unauthorised occupants, are not trespassers in a moral sense; instead, they are citizens compelled by poverty, migration, and the lack of affordable housing to live where survival becomes possible.
However, the Court was equally clear that the recognition of poverty could not eclipse other constitutional imperatives. It acknowledged that environmental degradation and contamination of drinking water affect millions, including the urban poor themselves. By treating both clean water and shelter as facets of Article 21, the judgment demonstrates a nuanced understanding that poverty alleviation cannot be pursued in isolation from public health and environmental protection.
WHY THE DECISION MATTERS
The High Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses access to shelter, clean water, a healthy environment, and basic civic amenities. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, such as Olga Tellis, and environmental jurisprudence that recognizes the right to clean drinking water, the Court observed that neither right could be treated as absolute.
Crucially, the Court rejected a purely procedural resolution and chose to decide the matter on the merits, recognising the urgency and irreversible human consequences involved. It upheld the necessity of clearing encroachments along the Kukrail water channel to protect the fundamental right to clean drinking water of the wider population. However, it simultaneously ensured that the right to shelter of slum dwellers was not compromised.
Examining the rehabilitation policy proposed by the State under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, the High Court noted that economically weaker section flats with a market value of approximately ₹15 lakhs were being offered to eligible slum dwellers at a highly subsidised rate, with minimal monthly instalments spread over a long period.
Importantly, the Court intervened to modify the scheme to make it more poverty-sensitive by reducing the initial deposit, extending repayment periods in cases of hardship, and permitting recourse to welfare funds for those unable to pay even subsidised instalments. The benefit of rehabilitation was also extended to similarly situated residents who had not approached the Court, reinforcing principles of equity and non-discrimination.
WHAT THE COURT HELD: BALANCING CLEAN WATER, HOUSING, AND HUMAN SURVIVAL
Legally, the judgment strengthens India’s socio-economic rights jurisprudence by reaffirming that Article 21 imposes affirmative and positive obligations on the State. It clarifies that even where eviction is legally justified, the State must act as a welfare-oriented constitutional authority and ensure dignified rehabilitation. The Court’s approach reflects a harmonisation of Part III and Part IV of the Constitution, where Directive Principles relating to housing, health, and standard of living inform the interpretation of enforceable fundamental rights.
Societally, the impact of the judgment is far-reaching. For thousands of slum dwellers, the decision transforms eviction from a moment of displacement into an opportunity for secure housing and social inclusion. Affordable ownership housing, flexible repayment terms, and access to State welfare funds collectively reduce the risk of homelessness and inter-generational poverty. The judgment also sends a clear signal to urban authorities that development and environmental protection must proceed alongside rehabilitation, not at the expense of the poor.
By recognising that poverty limits the ability to comply with rigid financial requirements, the Court humanised governance and acknowledged the everyday realities of informal urban life. This approach has the potential to influence future urban redevelopment projects across India by embedding poverty alleviation into planning and execution.
BEYOND THE COURTROOM: LEGAL TRANSFORMATION AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
Raju Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh stands as a model of contemporary constitutional adjudication that takes poverty seriously. The Allahabad High Court did not deny the illegality of the slum settlements, but it refused to allow formal legality to eclipse substantive humanity.
By balancing the right to clean drinking water with the right to shelter and ensuring meaningful and accessible rehabilitation, the judgment reaffirms that poverty alleviation is a constitutional responsibility, and not a discretionary act of charity. In an era of rapid urbanisation and frequent evictions, this judgment reminds us that development must not be built on displacement alone. True progress lies in ensuring that even the poorest citizens move forward with dignity, security, and a place to call home.
Utkarsh Singh is a TRIP intern
Mentored and Edited by Sneha Yadav