The Bombay High Court on Wednesday voiced strong disapproval and shock over the Maharashtra housing minister's refusal to grant a permanent alternate home to a 66-year-old widow, who has been living for decades in a room that was originally a common bathroom in a Mumbai chawl.
Judges Express Disgust at Minister's Stand
A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe did not mince words while addressing the state government's counsel. The court was hearing a petition filed by Malan Badekar, challenging an eviction notice issued to her on September 4. The judges stated they were "surprised" and "shocked" by the stand taken by Deputy Chief Minister and Housing Minister Eknath Shinde.
"There cannot be so much insensitivity to human concerns. Courts are there for common persons, for poor persons, marginalised persons. We are concerned for those who are deprived of justice," Justice Kulkarni remarked. The bench emphasized that once the High Court, a constitutional court, directs a minister to consider a case, it must be done in the right spirit. "How can you refuse? It's a judicial order," the judges asserted.
A Life Spent in a Converted Bathroom
The plight of Malan Badekar dates back to 1986. Her late husband, Baburao Badekar, who worked as an electrician for the Public Works Department (PWD), was temporarily permitted to occupy a common bathroom as a residence in the BDD (Bombay Development Department) chawls at NM Joshi Marg. Despite the room's origins, a court officer confirmed it is now effectively a one-room tenement.
Badekar's advocate, Ajay Saravde, informed the court that nine other individuals residing in similar bathroom-converted homes in Worli's BDD chawls had already been granted Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA). However, the state government, represented by advocate Manish Upadhye, maintained its stand that Badekar is not eligible for PAA, citing a 2017 Government Resolution (GR) on eligibility criteria.
Redevelopment Delay and Escalating Costs
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada), in its affidavit, claimed that the phase II redevelopment of the BDD chawls is being delayed because Badekar has not shifted to transit accommodation. Mhada's advocate, P.G. Lad, argued that the authority is now required to pay a 37% escalation in costs due to this delay.
The High Court, however, was not swayed by these administrative arguments. Justice Kulkarni retorted, "Forget the GR…Once the high court says the minister will consider, it has to be done with that spirit. The state govt is never insensitive like this. But there appears to be more than can meet the eye."
Court Demands Wider Data, Adjourns Hearing
Taking a broader view of the issue, the bench has now directed the state government to provide details of all service tenements across BDD chawls and information on how many tenants or former employees have been found eligible for PAA. The next hearing is scheduled for a future date, where this data will be scrutinized.
The court also made it clear it would formally record the housing minister's refusal to consider its earlier order from December 23. On that date, the HC had directed the government and Mhada to file affidavits after approval from the minister, who was "required to give special consideration to the issues involved." The latest proceedings highlight a growing tension between judicial directives aimed at humanitarian relief and bureaucratic adherence to official criteria.
