Eligibility Determination Committee must assess rehabilitation eligibility under the DUSIB Policy and extant judicial orders.

The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 22 May 2025 in W.P.(C) 7054/2025, which remanded petitioner No. 1’s case to the Eligibility Determination Committee (“EDC”) for reassessment of eligibility for rehabilitation under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015 (“DUSIB Policy, 2015”).

The contempt petition was instituted because the respondents had allegedly failed to constitute the EDC.

By order dated 23 February 2026, the Court directed the respondents to comply with the earlier order, unless its operation was stayed in the pending LPA, and clarified that the EDC was required to examine the relevant documents and judicial orders.

On 27 July 2026, DUSIB stated that the EDC had been constituted and that the petitioners’ matter was listed before it on 11 August 2026, after they could not appear on 24 July 2026.

Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the orders dated 22 May 2025 and 23 February 2026 by failing to constitute the EDC and implement the remand direction.

Whether the EDC, while reassessing the petitioners’ eligibility, was required to consider the DUSIB Policy, 2015 and the extant judicial orders concerning the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation.

Whether any further directions were required in the contempt proceedings after the constitution of the EDC and the scheduling of the petitioners’ hearing.

The Court applied the DUSIB Policy, 2015, under which eligibility for rehabilitation is to be determined on the basis of the requisite documents and their veracity and genuineness.

It reaffirmed the directions in the order dated 22 May 2025 that the matter was to be remanded to the EDC for reassessment; if the documents were found genuine and the petitioners eligible, they would receive the benefits available to other beneficiaries of the locality under the DUSIB Policy, 2015, with the order expressly enuring only for petitioner No. 1.

The Court further applied the principle that a statutory or administrative decision-maker must consider relevant and binding judicial orders while determining eligibility.

No separate precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the original directions required the EDC to reassess eligibility rather than grant rehabilitation automatically, subject to examination of the relevant documents and their genuineness.

Since DUSIB represented that the EDC had been constituted and that the petitioners had been given a date for appearance, the principal default alleged in the contempt petition had been addressed.

The Court clarified that the EDC must assess the petitioners’ case in accordance with the DUSIB Policy, 2015 and the various extant judicial orders governing rehabilitation eligibility, provide the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, and issue speaking orders.

The Court therefore found no necessity for further contempt directions at that stage, while preserving the petitioners’ right to challenge any adverse decision through remedies available in law.

It recorded that the EDC had been constituted and that the petitioners’ matter was scheduled for consideration on 11 August 2026.

The EDC was directed to consider the petitioners’ eligibility under the DUSIB Policy, 2015 and the applicable judicial orders, after granting them a hearing, and to pass requisite speaking order(s).

The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law if aggrieved by the EDC/DUSIB’s decision.

No further orders were passed in the contempt proceedings.