SC asks Bombay HC to conduct performance audit of 1971 Maharashtra law on slum development

NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has mandated the Bombay High Court to perform a comprehensive performance audit of the 1971 Maharashtra law concerning slum redevelopment. This directive arises from the observation that over 1,600 cases linked to this law remain unresolved in the high court, suggesting that the legislation meant to aid the poor is caught in a legal quagmire.

The Supreme Court has urged the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to establish a bench that will “initiate suo motu proceedings” to scrutinize the implementation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and identify the obstacles impeding its effectiveness.

“The Executive branch has a constitutional duty to ensure the objectives and purposes of a statute are achieved during its implementation. This duty includes the ongoing monitoring of the statute’s performance and a real-time assessment of its impact. Reviewing and assessing the statute’s implementation is a crucial aspect of the Rule of Law,” stated a bench composed of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar on Tuesday.

The bench further underscored that the judiciary plays a vital role in facilitating access to justice and ensuring the efficient operation of constitutional bodies. “In this capacity, the judiciary does not critique executive and legislative actions but instead provides momentum for systemic reforms,” the bench added.

These instructions were part of a judgment that dismissed an appeal by ‘Yash Developers’ against a high court decision. The high court had upheld the cancellation of a slum redevelopment project granted to the real estate firm in 2003 for a slum in Mumbai’s Borivali area. The project experienced significant delays and was ultimately terminated by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee on August 4, 2021.

The Supreme Court not only rejected the firm’s plea but also imposed a penalty of Rs one lakh, payable to the Supreme Court Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. Justice Narasimha, who authored the 43-page judgment, pointed out deficiencies in the law’s implementation and echoed the high court’s “frustration.”

According to data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), 1,612 cases involving disputes under the Act are pending in the high court. Of these, 135 cases have been pending for over a decade. In the last 20 years, 4,488 cases have been filed and resolved under the Act. Presently, the Bombay High Court has around 923 cases on the Appellate side and 738 on the Original Side awaiting adjudication.

“The Act is intended as beneficial legislation, designed to fulfill the constitutional promise of individual dignity by providing basic housing, which is essential to human life. However, the statute’s tendency to generate litigation is troubling. There seems to be an issue with the statutory framework’s capacity to fulfill the statute’s objectives,” the bench noted.

The bench also explained that the high court’s frustration with the Act’s implementation is “understandable.” The current appeal serves as a clear example of the high court’s genuine concerns, highlighting issues such as the identification and declaration of land as slums, the role of authorities in recognizing slums, and the involvement of builders, which raises questions about the integrity of the decision-making process.

The identification of slum dwellers involves a “complex process” requiring proof of their status. The verdict indicated that these issues, stemming from the statutory scheme and policy framework, should have been reviewed by the Maharashtra government.

“Evaluating whether the statute’s objectives are being met is an implied responsibility of the executive government. Reviewing and assessing the statute’s implementation is essential to the Rule of Law. Recognizing this executive obligation, constitutional courts have directed governments to conduct performance audits of statutes,” the bench stated.

The executive branch must ensure that the purpose and objectives of a law are realized during its implementation. Additionally, it must continually monitor the law’s performance and maintain a real-time assessment of its impact.

The Maharashtra law aims to benefit marginalized and impoverished communities. However, it is challenging for these intended beneficiaries to effectively advocate for legislative reform.