Fifty-five years after Maharashtra enacted its slum redevelopment law with the promise of improving living conditions and eventually making cities slum-free, the Bombay High Court recently observed that the goal of “slum extinction” had remained only a “dream on paper”. OMKAR GOKHALE explains why the court made these observations and the steps it has proposed to address the crisis.

Q) What is the case about?

The judgment was delivered by a special bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna in a suo motu plea initiated after the Supreme Court, in July 2024, asked for a review of the implementation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

The HC described the exercise as a “one-of-its-kind” review because instead of merely examining the constitutional validity of the law, it evaluated how the legislation had functioned in practice over the decades and where it had fallen short.

Q) What does the 1971 Slum Act provide?

The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 empowers the government to identify and declare “slum areas”, acquire land if necessary and undertake rehabilitation projects through the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).

In Mumbai, where land prices are among the highest in the country, the law became central to the city’s redevelopment model by allowing private developers incentives in exchange for rehabilitating slum dwellers. Over the years, this policy also contributed to Mumbai’s vertical expansion through rehabilitation towers.

Q) Why did the High Court say “slum extinction” remained a dream?

The HC observed that despite repeated amendments and decades of implementation, the law had failed to substantially reduce slums in Mumbai and other cities. It remarked that the “magnitude” of Mumbai’s slums had gone “beyond any reasonable imagination and rationale” and that the “official machinery” under the Act had failed to fulfil the vision of a slum-free city envisioned in 1971.

The court also criticised the broader state of urban planning in Mumbai, observing that “any town planning which does not sail with the tide of time is questionable”.

The bench identified several structural issues behind the continued expansion of slums, including unchecked encroachments on public and private lands, delayed and litigation-ridden rehabilitation projects, poor identification of eligible beneficiaries and increasing dependence on private developers in the rehabilitation process.

Q) What are “vertical slums”?

One of the HC’s strongest observations concerned the rise of what it described as “vertical slums” — rehabilitation towers that replace horizontal settlements but continue to suffer from overcrowding, poor ventilation and shrinking open spaces.

The court observed that redevelopment projects often multiply density on already congested plots, resulting in buildings with inadequate light, ventilation and basic amenities. Such structures, it said, had become a “common sight” in Mumbai and other cities.

Q) Why did the court call the system “developer-centric”?

The HC said that while slum redevelopment is projected as being driven by slum dwellers’ societies, in reality developers control nearly every stage of the process — from society formation and interactions with authorities to obtaining occupation certificates.

The court termed the system a “developer’s paradise” and observed that the role of slum societies had become “very limited”. It also criticised the participation of inexperienced “by-night developers” and said redevelopment projects should be undertaken only by firms with proven expertise and financial capacity.

Q) What did the High Court recommend?

The HC directed the Maharashtra government to form an expert panel to conduct a performance audit of the 1971 law and recommend reforms to make it more effective. It said the panel should examine how to achieve the “distant dream” of a slum-free Mumbai and other major cities in the state.

The court also recommended a more “systematic and scientific” approach to slum planning and rehabilitation. It stressed the need for geo-mapping and satellite imaging to identify slum lands and prevent fresh encroachments. It further called for limits on density in rehabilitation projects to ensure better ventilation, access to amenities and preservation of open spaces.

In addition, the HC suggested stronger regulation of developers and financial arrangements in slum rehabilitation schemes, regular functioning of grievance redressal committees and creation of a substantial stock of public housing. The bench also said policymakers should reconsider the assumption that all urban poor families must necessarily receive free housing.

The court further proposed the creation of a specialised corporation with scientific and technical expertise dedicated to slum planning and redevelopment, observing that the existing SRA machinery appeared overburdened.

Q) What broader message did the HC send?

While acknowledging that making Mumbai slum-free was a “herculean task”, the HC said it was not impossible if authorities showed “determination” and a “genuine willingness” to achieve public good.

Ending the judgment on a reflective note, the bench invoked the iconic line associated with Mumbai’s struggles and contradictions: “Aye Dil Hai Mushkil Jeena Yahan, Zara Hat Ke Zara Bach Ke, Yeh Hai Bombay Meri Jaan.”