Right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation: Supreme Court [READ JUDGMENT]

The Supreme Court has held that the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution does not does not mean right to government accommodation for retired government employees (Union of India vs. Onkar Nath Dhar)..While right to shelter is granted to millions of Indians who do not have shelter, retired government employees cannot claim government accommodation as a matter of right, a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna.“A right to shelter is a fundamental right, that may not be disputed, but such a right of shelter is granted to millions of Indians who do not have shelter. A section of society, more so retired government employees, who had earned pension, drawn retirement benefits cannot be said to be in such condition, where the government should provide government accommodation for an unlimited period," the judgment said. The ruling came on an appeal filed by the Central government against an order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the respondent, a retired employee of the Intelligence Bureau, to retain his government accommodation at a nominal fee till the prevailing circumstances in his native state, J&K improved, and he was able to return. The Union government, aggrieved by this order, appealed to the Supreme Court..The counsel for the Central government placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Lok Pahari (II) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh where an Act of the Uttar Pradesh Government that regularised the allotment of Government houses to ex-chief ministers was set aside..On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent relied on a judgement of the Delhi High Court in Union of India vs. Vijay Mam wherein the Court directed the Union to provide alternative accommodation to 24 Petitioners, including a former Director-General of Border Security Force, and their families subject to payment of a normal license fee.It was also argued that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution..The Court while finding that the orders of the High Court were unsustainable observed that in Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India, the Court had asked the then Minister of Urban Development to pay a sum of ₹60 lakh as exemplary damages for giving serving employees out of turn allotments..Further, the Bench discussed the decision on S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation in which the issue of occupation of government accommodation beyond the period for which the same was allotted, came up for consideration. The Court in that judgment had held that “Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation /retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another one month.”.After taking into consideration the judgments discussed by the counsel for the Centre as well as the Bench, it was held that government accommodation cannot be allotted to a person who has demitted office. The Supreme Court noted that despite the basis of the order being compassion, it did not give a retired person the right to continue occupying a government accommodation.“The compassion could be shown for accommodating the displaced persons for one or two months but to allow them to retain the Government accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative accommodation that too with a nominal licence fee defeats the very purpose of the Government accommodation which is meant for serving officers," the Court said. .The Bench also shed light on the government policy that allows a displaced person to be lodged in a transit accommodation and if it is not available then to provide cash compensation. However, it was also pointed out that there was no policy in place to provide accommodation to displaced persons on account of terrorism in the State of Jammu & Kashmir..Responding to the argument that right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21, the Bench observed, “A section of the migrants cannot be treated as preferential citizens to give them the right to shelter at the cost of millions of other citizens who do not have a roof over their heads. Such right of shelter does not and cannot extend to provide a government accommodation.”.Discussing the judgement in JL Koul v. State of J&K that was relied on by the Punjab and Haryana High Court while passing the order under challenge, the Supreme Court observed that the direction issued allowing retirees to possession of their accommodation was a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution and the same cannot be treated as binding precedent as decided in Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar.“Law declared by this Court is binding under Article 141. Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is not a binding precedent.”.Concluding the analysis of the issue the Court said, “Dhar and such like persons are not from the poorest section of the migrants but have worked in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy. To say that they are enforcing their right to shelter only till such time the conditions are conducive for their safe return is wholly illusory.”Therefore, the Court held that the orders passed by the Punjab & Haryana and Delhi High Courts were wholly arbitrary and irrational..The Bench granted the Respondent time till 31 October 2021, i.e., after 15 years of his retirement to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises.The Centre was directed to submit a report regarding action taken against retired government officials who continue in government accommodation post their retirement by virtue of High Court orders..[Read Judgment]