NEW DELHI: On Monday, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Maharashtra government and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai regarding a petition that challenges a Bombay High Court ruling allowing slum rehabilitation schemes on plots originally designated for parks, gardens, and playgrounds.
On June 19, 2025, the Bombay High Court upheld the legitimacy of a regulation concerning slum rehabilitation schemes, seeking to balance Mumbai’s critical need for green spaces with the constitutional right to shelter.
It endorsed Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which permits the execution of slum rehabilitation schemes on land initially reserved for open areas, as long as a portion is returned to the public.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi acknowledged the arguments made by senior advocate Shyam Divan, who represents the petitioners in the high court, and issued notices to the state government, the slum rehabilitation authority, and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM).
Divan contested the high court’s decision, emphasizing the need to protect Mumbai’s open public spaces. The bench directed Divan to provide copies of the petition and notices for timely resolution of the matter.
The previous high court bench, led by Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar, had dismissed the petition from NAGAR, previously known as CitiSpace.
Despite affirming the regulation, the high court mandated a strict 17-point framework to ensure that the promised open areas do not remain as “paper parks” but instead become functional and accessible amenities for the public.
The petitioners contended that allowing construction on up to 65% of the reserved spaces effectively legalizes encroachment and violates the “Public Trust Doctrine”.
They pointed out that many areas in Mumbai have alarmingly low per capita open space, totaling less than one square meter per person.
Rejecting the claim that this policy rewards encroachment, the high court stated it establishes a “constitutional equilibrium”.
The bench noted that the plots in question are completely occupied by slums and are not usable by the general public.
The high court emphasized that the Constitution does not require prioritization of environmental protection at the expense of other rights, but rather aims to achieve a balance that respects both environmental integrity and human dignity.
It portrayed the 65:35 compromise, where 35% of land is reclaimed as public park space and 65% is allocated for housing the urban poor, as a “practical and proportionate” method.
The court underscored that its approval hinges on stringent implementation of protective measures.
To avoid developers from creating unusable “fragments” of land, the court mandated that the 35% reserved area must be a continuous stretch rather than scattered bits.
Furthermore, these public spaces should not be cordoned off or restricted to residents of rehabilitation buildings; access must be granted to the general public.
Before transferring land to MCGM, the court noted that it must be developed with standard features such as jogging tracks, landscaping, and playground equipment.
The state is required to ensure that no new encroachments occur on reserved land post-notification.
The litigation initiated in the high court in 2002, contesting a 1992 policy that allowed redevelopment on reserved sites with 25% encroachment.
