Government accommodation is not meant for the retirees; right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation: Supreme Court

By - Divisha Srivastava*

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to shelter does not imply the right to government housing and overruled a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which permitted a retired Intelligence Bureau officer to stay in government accommodation.

Post his retirement as an official of the Intelligence Bureau in Delhi, Onkar Nath Dhar (Respondent), a Kashmiri migrant, requested that the government may allow him to keep the residence assigned to him for a modest licence fee until the situation in Jammu & Kashmir improves and the government allows him to return to his hometown.

Also Read - Political parties are to publish information regarding criminal antecedents of candidates within 48 hours of selection: Supreme Court

However, he was charged under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act of 1971. The respondent contested this at the Faridabad District Court, but his plea was dismissed. Later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on a Supreme Court decision in J L. Koul v. State of J&K and allowed his petition on the ground that he could not return to his home state.

However on the law laid down in J L. Koul v. State of J&K, the Supreme Court observed that, “the direction issued in J.L. Kaul that the retirees shall continue to possess the accommodation in their possession is a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution.”

Also Read - When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent: Supreme Court

The respondent based his contention on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, according to which the right to shelter is a fundamental right. The respondent was an Intelligence Bureau official who was drawing his salary and received alternate housing for 15 years after his retirement, coupled with pensionary benefits, according to the court.

The supreme court held that government accommodations are intended for serving officers and officials, not retirees, as a gesture of goodwill and sharing of wealth. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna went on to say that sympathy, however sincere, does not grant a retired individual the right to continue to live in government housing.

Also Read - Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of Income Tax Act is clarificatory and does not purport to add a new condition retrospectively: Supreme Court

The court also directed the Centre to submit a report on the actions taken against retired government employees who are still in government accommodation as a result of High Court orders.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Divisha Srivastava is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from S.N.D.T School of Law, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

Comments

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Justice Rohit Deo of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench Announces Resignation in Open Court

Justice Rohit Deo, a judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, announced his resignation on personal grounds during a courtroom session in Nagpur. The matters scheduled before him for the day were discharged following the announcement. Appointed to the Bombay High Court in June 2017, he was originally set to retire in December 2025. Justice Deo apologized to those present in the court, stating that he scolded them in an effort to encourage improvement. He expressed his resignation, mentioning that he cannot work against his self-respect. He later confirmed to reporters that he has submitted his resignation letter to the President of India due to personal reasons. Notably, in 2022, Justice Deo had acquitted a former Delhi University professor in a case involving alleged Maoist links. However, the Supreme Court stayed the order and instructed the Nagpur bench to rehear the case. Justice Deo had also recently stayed the implementation of a Maharashtra Government Resolution relate...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog