The Bombay High Court said on Saturday that the right to livelihood under Article 21 includes the right to live in safe buildings and houses, a statement that came in the wake of building collapses in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra.
People losing their lives as a result of building collapses must be fully eradicated, according to a bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni.
“People who die as a result of building collapses must be utterly destroyed. The right to livelihood includes the right to live in safe structures and houses….in the case of old and ruined buildings, there is no way to accept that the people must live in fear and risk their lives “the importance of the order
The Court stated that whoever owns the building, whether private or public, has a constitutional obligation to protect the safety of the premises so that the lives of the tenants are not jeopardised by a potential collapse.
The Court, in an order issued on Saturday, requested that a mechanism be put in place so that the concerned officers within their jurisdiction enforce an audit of buildings as required by law, and buildings that have been notified as ruinous can be vacated so that lives are not lost in the event of a building collapse.
The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed suo motu in Maharashtra to address the issue of decaying structures and unlawful constructions.
Out of concern for human lives lost in building collapses, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the subject.
After concluding that the suo motu case failed to persuade the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) officials to take action against the perpetrators, the Court ordered a judicial probe into the Malad building collapse case in June 2021.
The Court of Appeal concluded that “strong arms of law” are essential to punish the disorderly in order to protect people from “scruplous elements” engaged in illegal constructions.
After issuing a series of directives, the Court adjudicated the matter on Saturday.
The Bench emphasised in the order that the connivance between municipal and state officials was the reason for such illegal buildings being built and people living in them.
“It is for this reason, and out of care for our fellow residents, that we have emphasised the critical role of municipal and state officers in the scheme of appearing to be extra-vigilant and preventing building collapses,” the Bench stated.
The Bench chastised municipal and public officials whose failure to perform their obligations resulted in the deaths of innocent people.
“In the structure of constitutional governance, we cannot assume that a public official, no matter how high, mighty, or low, can remain unaccountable to the people,” the ruling declared.
“This would almost definitely necessitate the Court dealing with such officials in a harsh manner, as the law would require. They should not believe that they can get away with breaking the law without consequences “The Court upheld the ruling.
The Bench further stated that corruption in municipal government should be brought to justice by severely enforcing the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court commented, “Only then can there be a gleam of hope and sunshine for future generations.”
“The famous Lord Atkin remark, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” should be recognised as incorrect and a thing of the past in terms of its applicability in public government,” according to the directive.
The Bench also mentioned how, due to poor construction materials or other factors, some buildings become dangerous within a year of their completion.
“Experience has demonstrated that there are buildings of recent origin that were erected with substandard materials, were unsafe for occupation as a result of such construction, and eventually collapsed,” the Bench stated.
The Bench decided that a relatively new structure that has become dangerous must be brought to the attention of the municipal authorities by all parties involved, including the occupants, because such situations cannot be hidden.
Case: High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Ors.
