Introduction

• The Supreme Court of India has once again affirmed that the right to housing is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. While this interpretation is grounded in earlier judicial pronouncements, its reiteration in the present judgment is particularly significant for how it connects the constitutional guarantee of shelter with homebuyers'' rights, the commercial housing market, and the need for regulatory and structural reforms in the real estate sector.
• The Court has consistently underscored that the idea of shelter must go beyond a physical structure — it must be a safe, livable space equipped with basic civic amenities and suitable for human dignity.

Constitutional Basis of the Right to Housing

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. Over the decades, this provision has been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to encompass various socio-economic rights, including the right to live with dignity, which necessarily includes access to adequate housing. Several landmark judgments have laid the foundation for recognising housing as a fundamental right:

• In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court recognised the linkage between the right to livelihood and shelter, especially in the context of pavement dwellers.
• In Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996), the Court explicitly held that the right to shelter is a part of Article 21, vital for the full development of human personality.
• In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990), the Court ruled that the right to life includes the right to have a reasonable and safe dwelling.

These cases together reinforce the position that housing is not a luxury or privilege, but a basic human right essential for the enjoyment of all other rights.

International Framework and India''s Commitments

Globally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) under Article 25 recognises housing as integral to an adequate standard of living. Similarly, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which India is a signatory, identifies adequate housing as a core socio-economic right. These international instruments, though not directly enforceable in Indian courts, influence judicial interpretation and reinforce India’s obligation to uphold housing as a human right.

Current Housing Challenges in India

·       India’s housing landscape presents stark disparities, especially in urban areas. The country faces an estimated urban housing shortage of nearly 29 million units, largely concentrated among the economically weaker sections (EWS) and lower-income groups (LIG). Over 35% of the urban population resides in informal settlements such as slums and unauthorised colonies, where basic amenities and tenure security are lacking.

·       In rural India, despite the implementation of schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Gramin (PMAY-G), millions continue to live in kutcha houses or makeshift shelters, reflecting the persistence of rural housing deficits.

·       The real estate sector, which plays a central role in housing delivery, has seen widespread malpractice. Delays in project completion, diversion of buyer funds, speculative pricing, and the non-transparent use of cash are common issues that undermine buyer trust. While the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) has introduced a regulatory framework to improve transparency and accountability, its implementation remains inconsistent across states, limiting its impact.

·       Urban land scarcity and high land prices drive up the cost of housing. Regulatory delays, including the need for multiple clearances, add to project timelines and costs. Moreover, state housing boards and urban local bodies often lack the technical expertise and capacity to deliver large-scale housing projects efficiently.

·       There also exists a mismatch between supply and demand, as most housing schemes focus on middle-income households, leaving poorer segments underserved.

Significance of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

·       The current judgment is crucial in that it recognises homebuyers as vulnerable stakeholders, often investing their life savings into real estate projects. The Court warned against the risks of a real estate bubble driven by speculative investments and unaccounted cash transactions, which could lead to broader systemic instability.

·       One of the key recommendations in the judgment is the establishment of a revival fund, backed by the government, to support stalled but viable housing projects. This fund would aim to protect buyers, revive investor confidence, and prevent the collapse of financial institutions exposed to bad real estate loans.

·       In addition, the Court has directed the formation of a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to study and recommend reforms in the real estate sector, ensuring a more transparent and equitable system for both developers and buyers.

·       This judgment is emblematic of the judiciary''s increasing engagement with socio-economic rights, moving beyond traditional civil liberties. It underscores the State’s constitutional responsibility, under Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 39, 41, and 47), to provide adequate standards of living for all citizens.

·       Furthermore, it pushes for systemic reform in the real estate sector — a domain that is both a significant contributor to GDP and a source of deepening inequality. Addressing the structural issues in this sector is essential not only for economic stability but also for inclusive urban development.

Policy Landscape and Government Interventions

·       Government housing schemes have aimed to deliver on the promise of "Housing for All". Programmes such as PMAY (Urban and Gramin), Rajiv Awas Yojana, and Indira Awas Yojana have attempted to provide affordable housing to both rural and urban populations. However, these schemes face several implementation bottlenecks, including targeting inefficiencies, project delays, corruption, and poor integration with transport and public infrastructure.

·       On the financial front, the real estate sector is grappling with rising non-performing assets (NPAs) and a continued reliance on the informal cash economy, which distorts pricing and limits formal financing opportunities. This also impedes the government''s ability to monitor transactions and enforce accountability.

·       From a social justice perspective, housing is deeply intertwined with health, education, gender empowerment, and social dignity. The absence of secure and adequate shelter tends to entrench poverty, making it harder for vulnerable groups to break out of the cycle of deprivation.

Way Forward

·       Strengthening the implementation of RERA is essential, particularly by giving regulatory authorities greater enforcement powers and ensuring faster dispute resolution mechanisms. Expanding affordable housing finance — including credit-linked subsidies and interest rate reductions for weaker sections — can make housing more accessible.

·       There is a pressing need for urban planning reforms, including land pooling models, inclusionary zoning, and efficient use of public land for social housing. Any proposed revival fund must be governed by transparent eligibility criteria, time-bound fund disbursal, and independent audits to ensure accountability.

·       A public-private partnership (PPP) approach, guided by principles of social responsibility, could significantly enhance housing outcomes. Additionally, housing initiatives should be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 1 (No Poverty), to ensure long-term sustainability and inclusiveness.

Conclusion

·       The Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the right to housing as part of the right to life under Article 21 is not merely a judicial clarification but a constitutional and moral directive for reform. It calls for the State to treat housing as a core component of economic governance, not merely as an electoral promise or a symbolic gesture.

·       For India to truly achieve its vision of “Housing for All”, the focus must shift from sporadic welfare schemes to structural, accountable, and inclusive housing policies that secure the dignity of every citizen and uphold the spirit of constitutional justice.