The court requested details on the number of individuals who could be accommodated in shelter homes and an estimate of the homeless population in need of such facilities. If there were any shortages, the DUSIB was asked to outline how it would address the issue.
NEW DELHI: On December 3, the Supreme Court asked the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) to provide information on the facilities available for homeless individuals in Delhi, given the approaching cold winter.
“We are concerned, as a very chilly winter is approaching,” noted the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan.
The court requested details on the number of individuals who could be accommodated in shelter homes and an estimate of the homeless population in need of such facilities. If there were any shortages, the DUSIB was asked to outline how it would address the issue.
BRIEF FACTS
The case pertains to the right to shelter for homeless people in urban areas. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, emphasized that the issue was significant and that several orders had been issued by the court.
“What is the total capacity of shelter homes in Delhi?” the bench asked the DUSIB counsel.
He pointed out that the total capacity of shelter homes in Delhi was approximately 17,000, but nine shelter homes had been demolished, displacing around 450 residents, despite a capacity of just 286.
The bench inquired about the overall capacity of shelter homes in the city, to which the DUSIB lawyer confirmed it to be around 17,000. The case at hand specifically related to six temporary shelters destroyed by floods in the Yamuna River in 2023, which had been uninhabited since June 2023.
“Making such wild allegations that he is involved in corruption, he is made an accused,” the bench said, “where do you find it? This seriously affects somebody’s reputation”.
The DUSIB counsel proposed shifting homeless individuals from the area to a permanent shelter at Geeta Colony and claimed there were no deaths attributed to cold conditions during the previous winter.
The court asked the DUSIB to submit an affidavit with information about the available facilities for homeless people, and the matter was scheduled for a hearing on December 17. Bhushan also mentioned an allegation of bribery against a senior DUSIB officer, for which an FIR had been filed.
The bench remarked that such unsubstantiated accusations could harm the officer’s reputation, noting that the individual had not been named as an accused. The bench directed the DUSIB’s counsel to provide further details about the adequacy of the facilities, suggesting the use of reliable data from the past five to six years.
