National security outweighs strict procedural adherence in rehabilitation of unauthorized JJ clusters under Article 21.

The Petitioners, residents of ‘Bhai Ram Camp’, ‘DID Camp’, and ‘Masjid Camp’ near the Race Course area in Delhi, challenged eviction notices issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO).

Initially, the petitioners were asked to vacate without alternative accommodation.

Subsequently, the respondents decided to relocate them to Savda Ghevra under the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, 2015.

The Petitioners contended the relocation site is distant, lacks basic amenities, and disrupts their livelihoods and children's education.

The Union of India argued the land is required for "strategic purposes" to strengthen defense infrastructure and that substantial financial concessions regarding rehabilitation costs have been provided.

1. Whether the impugned eviction and relocation action violates the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the impugned action is in contravention of established law, specifically the DUSIB Policy, Protocol, and Supreme Court directions regarding demolition.

Article 21 of the Constitution, interpreting the right to life to include the right to livelihood and shelter as established in Olga Tellis v. BMC and Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Kaimalal Totame.

Sudama Singh v. Govt. of Delhi and Ajay Maken v. Union of India regarding the State's obligation to provide basic amenities during relocation.

‘Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation Policy, 2015’ and the ‘DUSIB Protocol’ governing the procedural steps for survey and rehabilitation.

Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which limits interference in policy decisions involving strategic interests.

The Court noted that while Article 21 protects the right to shelter, it does not create an absolute bar against eviction if a reasonable procedure is followed.

The Court found that although the respondents deviated from strict DUSIB Protocol (e.g., surveys conducted by L&DO/DDA instead of DUSIB), no prejudice was caused as all petitioners were ultimately deemed eligible for rehabilitation.

The Court accepted the Union's argument that in-situ rehabilitation was impossible due to the lack of available land in the immediate vicinity.

The Court held that the "strategic location" adjoining an Air Force Station and the need to secure defense infrastructure constituted valid national security grounds for eviction, a domain where judicial interference is restricted.

To mitigate the impact on the petitioners, the Court emphasized DUSIB's obligation under Clause 6D(vii) of the Protocol to ensure transport, health, and education facilities at the new site.

The Court disposed of the petitions by upholding the eviction but directing the respondents to ensure full compliance with the DUSIB Policy and Protocol regarding amenities (education, transport, water, etc.) at Savda Ghevra.

The Court recorded the Union’s undertaking to bear the ‘beneficiary contribution’ of ₹1,12,000 per dweller.

The Petitioners were granted 15 days to vacate the present camps and take possession of the allotted flats, failing which the respondents may proceed with eviction in accordance with law.