In a landmark judgment reinforcing the rights of marginalized citizens, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the allotment of a small flat under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, to a minor who was in her mother’s womb during the 2006 biometric survey. The child’s father, a recognized resident eligible for allotment, had passed away before the flat could be assigned. The Bench, comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda, directed the Chandigarh Administration to allot the flat within 15 days, highlighting that technical objections must not undermine the fundamental right to shelter.
The court also issued a broader policy direction, urging authorities to recognize the rights of minors in cases where a recognized resident passes away. The judgment, delivered with assistance from advocate and legal aid counsel Saurabh Arora for the petitioner, stresses the constitutional duty to adopt a humane and liberal approach while dealing with marginalized sections of society. The court noted, “While evaluating the applications of the marginalized sections of society for their rehabilitation in furtherance of their right to shelter, a more holistic and liberal view ought to be taken instead of a hyper-technical approach.”
The petitioner, who approached the High Court in 2015 at the age of nine through her paternal uncle, is the sole legal heir of her father, a resident of Labour Colony No. 5, Burail. Her father had been deemed eligible for allotment of a small flat by the Permanent Lok Adalat in March 2010 but passed away on February 15, 2013. Complicating matters, the petitioner’s mother went missing in 2014. The Chandigarh Administration had rejected the claim, citing the petitioner’s absence from the 2006 biometric survey and electoral rolls and claiming there was no provision for allotment to a minor. The High Court rejected these objections, observing, “Admittedly, when the biometric survey was conducted in March 2006, the petitioner was in the womb of her mother. Her name would naturally not appear in the voter lists. Similarly, the claim that a flat cannot be allotted to a minor cannot be accepted.”
The judgment emphasized that the petitioner’s right to a flat cannot be defeated simply because the allotment was delayed due to her father’s demise. The court held that as the sole legal heir, she is entitled to the flat in lieu of her father, who was found eligible. “We have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner, who is akin to an orphan, would be entitled to allotment of flat in lieu of her father,” the Bench said.
Placing the case in a larger constitutional framework, the court stressed that the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme aims to rehabilitate ultra-marginalized Jhuggi dwellers, secure their fundamental right to shelter, and ensure equitable distribution of resources. The court added, “An extraordinary situation of hardship has arisen where the sole legal heir of a recognized resident is an orphan, a minor, and rendered homeless. The Constitution, under Article 21, guarantees the Right to Life, which includes the right to shelter. It is the sacred duty of the courts to grant succour and ameliorate the plight of such citizens.”
The key highlights of the judgment include the allotment of a small flat to a minor under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, recognition that the child was in her mother’s womb during the 2006 biometric survey, and acknowledgment that the father passed away before allotment while the mother went missing. The court emphasized a humane and liberal approach over technical objections and directed the authorities to allot the flat within 15 days. The Bench also urged authorities to recognize minors’ rights when a recognized resident dies.
This judgment sets an important precedent, reinforcing the principle that welfare schemes must prioritize human dignity and rights over procedural technicalities.