NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Maharashtra government and others, including the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, on a plea challenging a Bombay High Court verdict that allows slum rehabilitation programs on plots originally reserved for parks, gardens and playgrounds.While upholding the validity of a slum rehabilitation ordinance on June 19, 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered a landmark judgment aimed at balancing Mumbai’s desperate need for green cover with the constitutional right to shelter.
It had upheld the validity of Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034.
The ordinance allowed for the implementation of slum renovation programs on lands originally reserved for parks, gardens and playgrounds, provided that part of it is restored to the public.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the observations of senior advocate Shyam Divan, who appeared for those who filed the PIL in the Supreme Court, and issued notices to the state government, slum rehabilitation authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and others.
Challenging the Supreme Court verdict, the senior lawyer said open public spaces in Mumbai should be protected.
The court asked Divan, representing NGO Alliance For Governance and Renewal (NAGAR), Neera Punj and Nayana Kathpalia, the petitioners in the Supreme Court, to furnish the copy of the petition and notices to the standing counsel for early disposal of the matter.
The bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar had dismissed the plea filed by NAGAR, formerly known as CitiSpace.
However, while upholding the law, the Supreme Court issued a strict 17-point mandate to ensure that the promised open spaces do not remain just “paper parks” but become functional, accessible public facilities.
The petitioners had challenged the ordinance arguing that allowing construction of up to 65 percent of reserved open spaces “legalizes encroachment” and violates the “Public Trust Doctrine.”
They highlighted that open space per capita in Mumbai is alarmingly low in many areas, less than one square meter per person.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the policy is a “reward for infringement,” ruling that it represents a “constitutional balance.”
The court had noted that these plots are currently 100 percent occupied by slums and are unusable for the general public.
“The Constitution does not ask us to protect the environment by ignoring other rights, but to protect the environment in addition to those rights (the right to shelter), in a manner that respects both nature and human dignity,” the Supreme Court had said.
It characterized the 65:35 trade-off, in which 35 percent of the land is reclaimed as public parks and 65 percent used to house the urban poor, as a “practical and proportionate” solution.
The Supreme Court emphasized that its approval is subject to strict implementation of safeguards.
To prevent developers from creating unusable ‘fragments’ of land, the Supreme Court had, among other things, ruled that the 35 percent reserved open space should be in one contiguous stretch and not spread into unusable stretches.
It said that these public areas cannot be fenced or restricted to the residents of the rehabilitation buildings and must remain open to the general public.
The Supreme Court had said that the land should be developed with standard amenities such as jogging paths, landscaping and play equipment before being handed over to the MCGM.
It said the state should ensure that no further encroachments take place on reserved lands after the notification.
The Supreme Court case began in 2002, challenging a 1992 policy that allowed redevelopment of reserved sites if they were 25 percent degraded.
#seeks #response #Maharashtra #government #civic #body #plea #order #slum #rehabilitation