COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT “KARNATAKA HOUSING AND HABITAT POLICY –

2009” CIRCULATED BY THE

HOUSING DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

The following are some of the comments on the Draft “Karnataka Housing and Habitat Policy –
2009” by the Slum Janandolana and various other organisations.

This critique/comments/suggestions are being offered from the perspective of the slum dwellers in
Karnataka with the belief that the actual process of drafting itself should have first begun by seeking the
suggestions of various interest groups such as slum organizations, dalit organizations, etc. from both rural
and Urban areas before preparing this draft. Given the draft that is being circulated it would be advisable to
shelve this draft and instead organize a series of consultations in various slums to understand the need and
the thought of the slum dwellers in regard to Shelter.

At the outset, it must be stated that we believe that slums are a rational development in urban areas
where people are forced to take over public/private lands due to the abject failure of the Government to
provide them with legitimate housing. Further, living in most unhygienic circumstances under the constant
fear of evictions, these slum dwellers are the lifeline of the urban areas and are essential contributors to the
economy and growth of the cities.

Before getting into the comments in regard to the Draft Policy it is important to point out one crucial
point. On page 12 it is stated that 40.50 lakh people live in 2601 slums, which is 22.50% of urban population
i.e to say that 22.50% of urban population lives in slums. This, however, is not accurate given that the KSCB
is yet to undertake a comprehensive survey of slums across all urban areas of Karnataka. For instance while
the official number of slums in Bangalore according to the KSCB is about 400 slums, there are atleast 1000
slums in Bangalore. Further, there has been no survey or assessment of the homeless populations or
pavement dwellers in towns and cities. Perhaps, the first step would be for the Government to undertake a
comprehensive survey of the slums across all the towns and cities of Karnataka and a survey of the homeless
and pavement dwellers.

There are some views adopted in the Draft Policy that must be commended. Among these perhaps
the view that adequate housing is just not housing but also access to basic services such as water, sanitation,
clean fuel, elctrcity, etc.(page 4). Similarly the view that there would be mandatory construction of
EWS/LIG houses by the private sector in any upcoming new project (page 24) and the statement that
housing for poor should have atleast 2 bedrooms with kitchen and toilet (page 26).

While appreciating these it is important to clarify that, on the whole, the Draft Policy is disappointing and
leaves much to be desired. Some of the conceptual and practical problems with the Draft Policy are
described below.

Housing is a fundamental right and not just a basic human need:

The Draft Policy has failed to acknowledge even once that housing is a fundamental right guaranteed under
the Constitution of country and hence can be asserted against the Government. Instead the Draft Policy uses
the language of “basic human need” which undermines the fundamental rights of people in this country.

Housing to be explicitly recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In
various cases, the Supreme Court has enlarged the meaning of life under Article 21 of the Constitution to
include within its ambit, the right to shelter. Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment
and a reasonable accommodation, in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [ AIR 1990 SC 630]
the Court held that

"The right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to
decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of
an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare
protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation, which would allow
 him to grow in every aspect - physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring
fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is
not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a
reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-
built fireproof accommodation,"
In Chameli Singh v. State of UP, in 1995, the Supreme Court while dealing with Art 21 held that the need
for a decent and civilized life included the right to food, water and a
decent environment. It said that:

‘In any organised society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the animal
need, of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to develop himself and is freed
from restrictions which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed to achieve this object. The
Right to live guaranteed in any civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent
environment, education, medical care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any
civilised society.’

Emphasizing further on the right to shelter, the Court in this case held that

‘Shelter for a human being, is not a mere protection of his life and limb, it is home where he has
opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore,
includes adequate living space safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient
light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to
have easy access to his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does not mean a mere right
to a roof over one's head but right to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live and
develop as a human being. The Right to shelter, when used as an essential requisite to the right to
live, should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right. As is enjoined in the
Directive Principles, the State should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it for its
citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting. In a democratic society as a member of the
organised civic community one should have permanent shelter so as to physically, mentally and
intellectually equip to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental
Duties and to be useful citizen and equal participant in democracy.’
In PC Gupta Vs State of Gujarat and Ors, in 1994, the Court went further holding that the Right to shelter in
Article 19(1) (g) read with Articles 19(1) (e) and 21, included the right to residence and settlement.
Protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter to enjoy the
meaningful right to life. The right to residence and settlement was seen as a fundamental right under Article
19(1)(e) and as a facet of inseparable meaningful right to life as available under Article 21.

Further, this fundamental right has been recognized by several human rights bodies of the UN, which has
stated that everyone, therefore, has the right to adequate housing, and should have sustainable access to
natural and common resources, clean drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation
and washing facilities, food storage facilities, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services. It would
suffice to refer to the adoption of the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000, by the United Nations
General Assembly in 1988, wherein it was stated that
“The right to adequate housing is universally recognized by the community of nations…All nations
without exception, have some form of obligation in the shelter sector, as exemplified by their
creation of housing ministries or housing agencies, by their allocation of funds to the housing
sector, and by their policies, programmes and projects. All citizens of all States, poor as they may
be, have a right to expect their Governments to be concerned about their shelter needs, and to
accept a fundamental obligation to protect and improve houses and neighbourhoods, rather than
damage or destroy them.”

A short note on the International Covenants that guarantee every person the Right to Shelter is being
submitted along with these comments.

“Affordable housing for all”!

The Draft Policy repeatedly refers to the intention of providing affordable housing to all, which implies that
only those who can ‘afford’ as would be defined by the Government would be entitled to housing. This is
completely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the fundamental rights guaranteed under it,
irrespective of buying power.

This, even as per the Draft Policy, is a shift away from subsidy to cost sharing or cost recovery as is
explicitly stated (page 23).

Thus, the aim of the Government is to provide houses to those who can firstly ‘willing’ to pay and, secondly
‘afford’ to pay for houses.

The Draft Policy has emerged with rather disturbing analysis especially that around 45% live in semi-
permanent and temporary houses (page 7). Further in regard to the shortage of housing, it is stated that EWS
need 21.78 million units, LIG is 2.89 million and middle and HIG is 0.04 million (page 12).

Thus it is clear that a majority of Indians, rural or urban, live in structures that are either semi-permanent and
temporary, and further, about 99% of the housing shortage is faced by the poor. It is also concluded that in
regard to houseless and siteless persons, more prominent amongst them are the SC and ST families (page 6).

Obviously, as stated in the Draft Policy itself (page 21), inadequacy of housing is directly linked to
magnitude of poverty. Despite this being the case, the Draft Policy adopts the slogan of “Affordable
Housing for All”. Thus, the poor who could not afford proper or any housing due to the lack of financial
ability, will now be excluded from their fundamental right to housing due to their inability to ‘afford
housing’. Thus, the dalits and adivasis, backward communities and minorities form the majority of the
populations with improper or ho housing, will continue to be denied their fundamental right to Shelter if this
slogan of the Draft Policy were to be adopted.

Perhaps, this explains the absence of any statement in the “Aims of the policy” (page 22), mentioning the
objective of the Draft Policy to provide houses to all.

Privatisation of housing:
There is clear emphasis on using PPP in the provision of houses especially for EWS and LIG people (page
39). This is repeatedly laid out throughout the Draft Policy. In fact there is an entire section on the “Need for
Public Private Partnerships in Housing” (page 15) and the justification for PPP is allegedly due to resource
mobilization requirements (page 21).

The sorry experience of the slum dwellers in Mumbai where re-housing projects for slum dwellers under the
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by private builders has turned into a real estate scam, which have been exposed
by Government Committees which are available with the Slum Janandolana.

The Draft Policy having been provided with an opportunity to correct the past failures of the government in
providing housing to all, has adopted a dependence on PPP which is nothing but orienting and supporting
the profiteering motives of the private sector. It widens the scope for the nexus of builders-corporates-
lending agencies to interfere in the constitutional, pro-people, democratic decision making processes. The
proposed Reforms are not social or pro-people rather would further shrink the available space for the poor
and the middle class in the cities. It is a step to boost growth in the Real Estate market, now with unlimited
FDI and foreign players, the aim of “Housing for All” is kept elusive and a distant dream. The concept
‘cities without slums’ sounds hollow without a people centric framework of decision-making and
implementation.

Lack of proper analysis of contributions of various schemes:

The Draft Policy lacks in one more aspect, which is that the Draft Policy is not based on required detailed
data on housing in Karnataka. Instead the Draft Policy contains certain statements and tables that are not
comprehensive. It would have been in the fitness of things if the Draft Policy or preparatory papers for the
Draft Policy contain the various Schemes since Independence to provide housing to all, including slum
dwellers and in rural areas and the performance of these schemes to date.

This is apparent from the Table on page 8 of house allegedly constructed between 2003-2009 where there is
no district-wise, city-wise, etc. break-up or any other qualifications. There is a desperate need for an
accurate picture of how houses have been provided under each scheme and by each institution year-wise and
this will help in understanding the contributions thus far and the problems thereof.

It is important that such a collection of data of performance of slum housing schemes from Independence
and its analysis is also required before the statement that “… this is what the government has done for
EWS/LIG…” (page 10) can be made.

A report prepared in regard to the implementation of the Nirmala Jyothi and VAMBAY schemes is also
being submitted with these comments.

Reservation of land for EWS/LIG:

The Draft Policy makes an attempt to determine standards for earmarking of houses for EWS/LIG in
projects, where it has stated that 25% would be earmarked for EWS/LIG (page 15).

In regards to earmarking of land, it states that 10% of residential zones in Master plans [page 28: 5.1(c)] and
10-15% in every new private/public housing project [page 28: 5.1(d)] would be earmarked for EWS/LIG
persons.

The underlying basis, perhaps, for this determination is the alleged scarcity of urban land (page 16) and is
also used to justify the need for PPP and multi-storey constructions for the EWS/LIG (page 30).

This determination of percentage of housing earmarked for EWS/LIG is fundamentally flawed and contrary
to the Constitution.

In the first place the alleged scarcity of urban land is a myth. In regard to Bangalore, for instance, the recent
report of the A.T. Ramaswamy has clearly disclosed the large quantum of urban land that has been illegally
encroached upon by various persons and which is being recovered by the Government that can be used for
housing of the urban poor. Further, the quantum of land that slums are presently located on is very small and
can be used for their housing without any need for them to be shifted elsewhere.

Secondly, given the analysis presented in the Draft Policy itself it is seen that 99% of the housing shortage is
faced by the poor (page 12). Given this fact, a mere 10%-25% earmarking would hardly address the problem
of housing shortage faced by the poor.

Lastly, in the Directive Principles part of the Constitution, Article 39(b) requires the state, in particular, to
direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are
so distributed as best to sub serve the common good. Given this it is imperative that the earmarking of land
and housing must be in proportion to the EWS/LIG populations.

Only multi-storey buildings for EWS/LIG:

It is rather disturbing that the Draft Policy explicitly lays down that the entire construction of EWS and LIG
houses in urban areas shall be multi-storey as ground+3 storey or ground+4 storey multi-storey without
installation of lifts (page 30).

This is completely irrational and the Slum Janandolana reiterates that single houses shall be constructed for
the urban poor in urban areas.

Government as Facilitator?
The Draft Policy in the part titled “Focus Areas” states that there is the need for role of the Government to
change from that of the “Builder and Provider” to “Facilitator” (page 21).

As stated previously housing is a fundamental right and this proposed shift is nothing but an attempt by the
Government to abdicate its constitutionally mandated role fulfilling the fundamental rights and provide
suitable housing to all.

Lip service to ‘special needs’ of ‘special categories’ of persons:

The Draft Policy also attempts to paint a picture of concern and care for the needs of the SC/ST communities
(page 22), pavement dwellers and homeless [page 28 5.1(e)] and of the special needs of single working
women, disable and senior citizens (page 35) without much conviction or belief.

We believe that there needs to be a clearer and well-formulated policy in this regard and that of night
shelters (page 35) instead of such bald statements.

Land title:
Another disturbing suggestion of the Draft Policy is that land or shelter provided to slum dwellers will be
made non-transferable for 10 years (page 33). This is unacceptable and contrary to the statements made
previously in the Draft Policy wherein it is stated that amendments have been made to the Slum Clearance
Act for giving land titles to slum dwellers (page 14).

It goes without saying that slum dwellers would have to be given unconditional land titles for the land on
which their houses currently stand and there can be no question about that.

No whisper of evictions:
The Draft Policy is silent about evictions of slum dwellers.

It is our stand that under no circumstances can any slum eviction be permitted and only in-situ re-housing
projects can be commissioned.

The Draft Policy must reiterate the recommendations out forth by the Law Commission of India in its 138 rd
report titled “Legislative Protection for Slum and Pavement Dwellers” and prohibit evictions of slum
dwellers.

Some other concerns:

In addition to the above there are some other concerns that need to be flagged:
 The suggested Special Action Plan for slum dwellers [5.1(f); page 28-29] without any details.
 The suggestion of rental housing (page 34) but its apparent emphasis on IT professionals. The
migrant populations in cities especially Bangalore include Construction workers, etc. who need to
considered on a priority basis.
 There is also the mention of satellite townships (page 37) especially in respect of Bangalore. It is
important to remember that the proposed townships around Bangalore have already run into trouble
and farmer groups have been vociferously objecting to the acquisition of land for townships. We
also object to the same and demand that all the land that has been recovered and will be recovered in
accordance with the A.T. Ramaswamy report be used for housing purposes instead of being
auctioned off.The draft policy seems to be aiming at usurpation of land around Bangalore and other
cities. This is likely to be put on the fast track by the pushing force of builders unless the
infrastructure development is put forth as a strict precondition.
 And finally we would like to state that for the drafting of the policy, material was drawn from
various other policy documents from across the country. However, to not even change the name of
the State is unacceptable and points to the shoddy nature of the Draft Policy preparation. Reference
would be to the mention of the State of Punjab in the Draft Policy (page 30)

In conclusion:
The Constitution of India grants right to life, which incorporates guaranteeing shelter and other basic
services including right to livelihood. Various fundamental rights and directive principles that define a
framework of equality and distributive justice necessarily draw an agenda of providing the adequate,
habitable housing to every citizen. It is in this contextual framework of values and principles that any
policy/legislation be formulated. The goal for a proper equitable housing policy can only be attained if the
policy and the plans are made with the objective of utilizing all our resources-land and human power
effectively and efficiently. It also requires that the primacy to the poor and due recognition of value
framework of equity and justice becomes the bases for development planning as a whole and housing
projects in specific.
 The obligations of the State needs to be fulfilled towards guaranteeing every citizen’s right to
shelter, without any excuse of either shortage of land availability or lack of funds. Since the largest shortage
of housing stock is faced by the poor-the slum dwellers and those engaged in unorganized sector, the
intervention needs to be prioritized and this be the category whose needs should be primarily addressed.

Here we submit that a framework must be evolved towards realizing the goal of shelter for all.
Some of the suggested aspects are presented below:
Land Availability
While carrying out the obligation of shelter for all, another major constraint can be of availability of land.
However the principles of equity and justice come handy as a solution.
• Use of lands recovered as per the AT Ramaswamy Committee report in Bangalore and similar
Committees in other cities must be used for housing of EWS/LIG.
• Slums must not be evicted and in-situ re housing projects must be immediately initiated.
• Prime lands have been leased at abyssal low rates to the elite in Bangalore and the major cities
across the state. Rectifying these distortions either the land from the holder should be taken back or
the lease should be renewed as per the market rate and the money thus be used as a fund for making
available land to the poor.
• The state should work towards mandate the reserving of land proportional to the percentage of the
poor for every village, town and city.

Slums
The poor localities in urban areas need to be seen not as illegal encroachments or inhuman settlements,
but as service guilds. This perception is necessarily to be based on the real valuable contribution of the poor
dwellers, without appropriate, just remuneration. The unhygienic conditions, a major criterion to define a
slum, is a result of iniquitous and inadequate services (sanitation, infrastructure, health and shelter) and
related also to poverty, which is endogamous to economic disparity. The slum dwellers deserve and
should be granted adequate space- physical (land), economic (budget allocation) and political (decision
making) as a policy decision, taking cognizance of their numerical strength, socio and economic needs and
contribution.

• Slum demolitions or evictions must be henceforth prohibited and only free in-situ ‘slum
development’ should be part of the metropolitan region development plan.
• Slum development can have the multi components of slum improvement that would include
augmentation of basic civic services like Water supply, sanitation, health and medical facilities,
access roads, educational facilities etc and slum housing in accordance with the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Act, Karnataka Municipalities Act and Karnataka Slum Clearance Act.
• The entire concept of cut-off dates is arbitrary and should be given up. All the households in an
“informal settlement” should be considered as eligible for formal housing schemes/projects.
• Tenure or Ownership rights over land on which the slums exist should precede any
programme/scheme/project of slum development or rehabilitation.
• Following the 74th amendment of the Constitution, each slum community (as Kolache Pradesha
Sabha) should be recognized as the first and the fore most unit of the local self governance for the
purpose of development planning, with due powers and resources (including financial) allocated
officially.

Employers' Housing Responsibilities

• Employee housing must be a necessary condition for up coming and already established large
industries.
• Housing for the employees should be seen as an integral aspect of the planning and financing of an
industry or an organization.
• The provisions of Construction and Building Workers Welfare Act 1996 and Inter State migrant
Workmen Act, 1979 that stipulates the responsibilities of the employers towards the housing of
their employees should be strictly implemented in regards to construction workers. Action should be
taken against defaulters.
 • The provisions of Inter State migrant Workmen Act, 1979 that stipulates the responsibilities of the
employers towards the housing of their employees should be strictly implemented in regards to
construction workers. Action should be taken against defaulters.
• The employer’s responsibility towards the housing of its employees should cover both the
permanent and temporary employees and giving special focus to contract laborers.
• Either the State should ensure payment of optimum wages, due perks and allowances for housing,
for the unorganized sector or make sure that employers fulfill the responsibility of providing
housing to their employees.

We therefore demand that:

1. Housing be stated to be to be explicitly recognized as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution.

2. The State cannot do away with its responsibility of providing housing to its people especially the
poor. It cannot remain a mere facilitator.
3. In order to make houses available there should be clear reservations of lands for the urban poor in
proportion with its population.
4. To attain the goal of equitable distribution of land in urban areas there is a need for a law, which
defines and restricts minimum and maximum land holdings by a person in urban area.
5. In addition to making implementation of Construction and Building Workers Welfare Act 1996 we
also demand the implementation of the Inter-state Migrant Workmen’s (welfare) Act 1979 a part of
it.
6. The Policy should provide for security of tenure to all the slum dwellers and immediately halt all
kinds of urban evictions.
7. It is the responsibility of the Union and State government to provide for adequate budgetary
allocations for providing housing to all especially the poor and the burden of finances should not be
passed on to the urban local bodies.
8. The fact that there has been an increment in the housing shortage since the start of economic reforms
and reliance on private sector in providing the same, proves the failure of PPP model in housing
sector especially for the poor. Therefore the PPP model should not be relied upon for providing
housing to the urban poor.
9. We further demand that before finalizing the Draft Policy, there should be a wider process of
consultation, for which we propose the following:
a. The Draft “Karnataka Housing and Habitat Policy – 2009” and all the background papers
prepared in this regard and surveys conducted should be made public and after discussion,
the recommendations be made part of the Draft Housing Policy.
b. A wider Consultation process should be carried out, holding meetings in each of the major
Cities and in each of the regions in Karnataka. All the Slum Dwellers' and other Peoples'
Organizations and experts especially those known for pro people and pro poor planning and
housing should be the participants.
c. The State Housing policy should be converted into an enactment after it is finalized with
widest possible consensus.