Indian Constitution is a living document, constantly interpreted by courts to align with the evolving needs of society. Among the numerous rights read into Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—the right to housing or shelter has emerged as one of the most socially significant. Housing is not merely about physical shelter; it encompasses dignity, security, and the ability to live a meaningful life.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors. reaffirmed that housing is a fundamental right under Article 21, and directed the Centre to create a revival fund for stressed real estate projects, recognising the plight of millions of middle-class and lower-income families facing delayed or denied possession. This article examines the constitutional basis, judicial evolution, and current status of the right to housing in India, with reference to a landmark judgment.
Constitutional Basis of the Right to Housing
Article 21 and Expansive Interpretation
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Initially confined to mere protection of life and liberty, the interpretation of Article 21 broadened post-Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Court held that “life” means more than animal existence and includes the right to live with human dignity.
From this foundation, the right to housing was gradually recognised as an essential component of the right to life.
Directive Principles of State Policy
Articles 38, 39, 41, 42, and 47 of the Constitution enjoin the State to secure social and economic justice, adequate means of livelihood, and improved standards of living. Although non-justiciable, these provisions provide interpretive guidance, allowing courts to read socio-economic rights—including housing—into Article 21.
Judicial Recognition of Housing as a Fundamental Right
Early Foundations
- Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990): The Court held that the right to life includes the right to a decent environment and shelter. It is observed that housing is a basic need without which other rights lose meaning.
- Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996): A landmark ruling where the Court explicitly declared that “the right to shelter is a fundamental right available to every citizen under Article 21.” It clarified that shelter encompasses adequate living space, light, air, sanitation, and civic amenities—far beyond a mere roof over one’s head.
- Samatha v. State of A.P. (1997): The Court reiterated that the right to shelter is inseparable from socio-economic justice, reinforcing the State’s duty to protect vulnerable communities from displacement.
Expansive Definition
The Supreme Court, in Chameli Singh, emphasised that housing must ensure the holistic development of the individual—physical, mental, intellectual, and spiritual. Thus, the right to housing includes not just four walls but also the infrastructure necessary for dignified living.
Landmark Judgment: Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors.
Background
Nature of Dispute
- The matter arose under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, involving stalled housing projects where homebuyers were left without possession despite paying substantial amounts.
- Many real estate developers defaulted, leading to insolvency proceedings.
- Alongside, speculative investors were misusing IBC provisions to recover money quickly, worsening the plight of genuine homebuyers.
Impact on Homebuyers
- Thousands of middle-class families, having invested their life savings in housing projects, were left in crisis.
- They faced the dual burden of paying rent for temporary accommodation and EMIs for their unfinished homes.
- Senior citizens were particularly affected, with many unable to secure shelter in their lifetime.
Regulatory Weakness
- While the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), 2016 was enacted to protect buyers, in practice it lacked adequate infrastructure, manpower, and enforcement powers.
- As a result, RERA orders often went unenforced, leaving homebuyers helpless.
Supreme Court’s Concern
- The Court noted that the Right to Housing is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21, and the State has a constitutional obligation to secure it.
- It expressed strong concern that the real estate sector was being treated as a speculative investment market, undermining its true purpose—providing homes.
- The Court emphasised the human cost: lack of housing erodes dignity, disrupts family life, and violates constitutional rights.
Relief Sought
Petitioners and homebuyers sought intervention to:
- Ensure possession of their homes.
- Prevent speculative misuse of IBC.
- Direct the government to create mechanisms for completing stalled projects.
Key Findings of the Court
- Housing as a Fundamental Right: The Court reaffirmed that denying possession of homes violates the right to shelter under Article 21.
- State’s Role: The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure affordable housing and protect homebuyers.
- Speculative Investors v. Genuine Homebuyers: The Court warned against speculative investors treating housing as a stock market instrument, undermining the real purpose of real estate.
- Middle-Class Plight: The Court highlighted how middle-class families lose dignity when they cannot secure possession despite investing lifelong savings.
Directions Issued
The Court issued far-reaching directives :
- NCLT/NCLAT Strengthening: Vacancies to be filled urgently.
- RERA Empowerment: Provide infrastructure, staff, and enforcement mechanisms.
- Revival Fund: Creation of a fund to revive stressed projects, with CAG audits for transparency.
- Escrow Accounts: Ensure buyer funds are not diverted.
- Affidavits: Developers to provide clear declarations in risky contracts, especially protecting senior citizens.
- Project-wise Insolvency: Prevent healthy projects from being dragged into liquidation due to one default.
This judgment reflects a constitutional philosophy: housing is not a privilege or investment tool but a fundamental right.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan stated:
This Court has, in a catena of decisions, consistently held and reaffirmed that the Right to Shelter is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This recognition casts a corresponding duty on the State to ensure access to adequate housing, particularly for weaker sections. Indeed, various welfare schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) have been initiated by the Government to provide affordable housing.
A home is not merely a roof over one’s head; it is a reflection of one’s hopes and dreams – a safe space for a family, a refuge from the worries of the world. With India rapidly industrialising and the rural-to-urban mobility proceeding at lightening pace, the demand for housing has risen sharply. Yet, the plight of tax-paying middle-class citizens paints a disheartening picture. Having invested their lifelong savings in pursuit of a home, many are compelled to shoulder a double burden – servicing EMIs on one hand, and paying rent on the other – only to find their “dream home” reduced to an unfinished building.
In some cases, construction has not even commenced despite full or substantial payment. An average homebuyer may be a teacher, lawyer, doctor, IT professional, or a government employee, who has poured his or her hard-earned money into the pockets of a developer. For such individuals, a stable roof over their family’s head is all they desire. The anxiety of not having a home despite paying a fortune is bound to take a serious toll on health, productivity, and dignity.
It is therefore imperative that the life savings of a common person culminate in timely possession of their promised home.
Challenges in Realising the Right to Housing
- Speculative Real Estate Practices: Investors misuse legal frameworks for profit, delaying completion of projects.
- Weak Regulatory Enforcement: RERA, despite its strong framework, suffers from inadequate infrastructure and enforcement powers.
- Urban Housing Crisis: Rapid urbanisation creates a shortage of affordable housing. Informal settlements and slums expand unchecked.
- Affordability: Prices in metro cities are beyond the reach of the middle class despite government schemes.
- Delayed Adjudication: Pending cases in consumer forums, RERA, and insolvency tribunals result in prolonged uncertainty.
- Displacement: Infrastructure projects often displace marginalised communities without proper rehabilitation.
Policy Responses and Court Recommendations
Government Schemes
- Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY): Aims for “Housing for All” by 2024, targeting urban poor.
- State-Level Programs: Many states have parallel housing boards and affordable housing policies.
Judicial Directives in Mansi Brar
- Revival fund for delayed projects.
- Empowered and functional RERA authorities.
- Mandatory affidavits for transparency.
- Periodic CAG audits.
Housing, Dignity, and Human Development
Housing enables access to other rights:
- Education: A stable home environment supports children’s schooling.
- Health: Adequate sanitation and living conditions reduce disease.
- Privacy and Security: Housing protects against exploitation and crime.
- Equality: Without housing, socio-economic disparities widen further.
As the Court emphasised, want of decent residence frustrates the very object of Article 21.
Conclusion
The recognition of the Right to Housing under Article 21 is a landmark in India’s constitutional jurisprudence. From Shantistar Builders and Chameli Singh to the 2025 decision in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma & Ors., the judiciary has consistently held that housing is integral to life, dignity, and liberty.
Yet, realisation of this right remains uneven. Weak enforcement of RERA, speculative misuse of IBC, affordability crises, and urban displacement highlight the gaps between legal recognition and ground reality.
The way forward requires:
- Stronger regulation and enforcement.
- Affordable housing policies with real impact.
- Judicial and legislative synergy in protecting genuine homebuyers.
Housing, as the Supreme Court reminds us, is not a luxury but a constitutional necessity. It anchors the very idea of a dignified life under Article 21, ensuring that every citizen can truly claim the promise of the Constitution.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams