Delhi needs better slum rehabilitation policy

1. At a Glance

• Delhi's slum rehabilitation framework sets out who qualifies for a home when jhuggi-jhopri (JJ) clusters, Delhi's unplanned slum settlements, are cleared or redeveloped, and on what terms. Eligibility turns on a cut-off date: families must have lived in the cluster before that date to qualify [1].
• In late 2026 the Delhi Assembly passed a law moving that cut-off from 1 January 2006 to 1 January 2025. The Centre estimates about 4 lakh families could benefit [1][2].
• The core argument of the source article is that rehabilitation should cover a household's whole urban life (work, school, care, neighbours, commute), not just hand over a flat. It calls for an "in-situ first, relocation last" rule that can be enforced [1].
• UPSC relevance: urbanisation (GS-I), the right to shelter under Article 21 and welfare schemes such as PMAY-U (GS-II), and urban land and housing finance (GS-III).

2. Why in the News

• Delhi Assembly law (2026): changes the JJ cluster cut-off date from 1 January 2006 to 1 January 2025 [1].
• Union Home Minister's review meeting (c. June 2026): reported that the Cluster Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2026 had been finalised, with a cut-off of 01.01.2025, benefiting 4 lakh families [2].
• Pending notification: the article describes the 2026 slum rehabilitation policy as "soon-to-be notified", so it had not been notified by 4 November 2026 [1].
• Op-ed trigger: Surbhi Sachdeva (Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy), The Hindu, 4 November 2026, p. 13 [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• PMAY-Urban (Housing for All): its In-Situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR) vertical uses the slum land itself as a resource to rehouse dwellers on the same site, with central assistance of up to ₹1 lakh per house where needed [3][4].
• January 2015: a PIB release announced the redevelopment of JJ clusters to make Delhi "slum-free", with a proposed cut-off of 1 June 2014 [5].
• 2015 Delhi policy (DUSIB): set the eligibility cut-off at 14 February 2015. Eligibility required voter lists of 2002, 2007 and 2010 at the same address, plus a ration card and an income certificate [6].
• Earlier cut-off changes: for at least some clusters, the cut-off had already been moved from January 2007 to June 2009 [6].
• Later renaming: the 2015 policy was renamed the Mukhya Mantri Awas Yojana [2].
• December 2019: the Union minister announced that the DDA would redevelop 378 JJ clusters under in-situ rehabilitation [7].
• 2 November 2022: the PM inaugurated 3,024 EWS flats at Kalkaji Extension, Delhi's first in-situ project under DDA [8][9].
• 2026: the 2026 policy was finalised (cut-off 01.01.2025) and the Assembly passed the law shifting the cut-off [1][2].
• Judicial milestones:
• Olga Tellis (Supreme Court) linked where a person is housed to their livelihood.
• Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken (Delhi High Court) required meaningful engagement with residents, surveys and proper rehabilitation, rather than treating residents as mere encroachers [1].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis tied the right to shelter and its location to livelihood. This is the Article 21 basis for the "livelihood catchment" argument, i.e. new housing must stay within reach of residents' work [1].
• The Delhi High Court in Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken required surveys, meaningful engagement and rehabilitation before any demolition [1].
• Moving the cut-off by law corrects what the article calls an "arbitrary exclusion" [1].

Social

• Relocating families to the city's edges breaks their access to work, schooling, care networks and neighbours. Women and informal workers are hit hardest [1].
• The paperwork tests (voter lists from three different years at the same address) exclude migrant and mobile households [6].

Economic

• ISSR uses slum land as a resource and cross-subsidises housing through private participation (PPP) [3].
• Kalkaji cost about ₹345 crore for 3,024 units, roughly ₹11 lakh per unit (derived from [8]).

Administrative / Governance

• Responsibility is split across several bodies: DDA (Centre), DUSIB (Delhi government) and other land-owning agencies [10][7].
• The cut-off has changed many times (2006, 2007→2009, 2014, 2015, 2025), which creates uncertainty and invites litigation [1][5][6].
• The article's proposed safeguard: no demolition until a serviced home is ready, with public transport, schools and health facilities working from day one [1].

Comparative / Historical

• The article argues Delhi should learn from both the successes and the shortcomings of Mumbai's slum rehabilitation model [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• c. June 2026: the Home Minister's review meeting finalised the Cluster Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2026 (cut-off 01.01.2025, about 4 lakh families) [2].
• 2026: the Delhi Assembly passed the law shifting the cut-off to 1 January 2025 [1].
• January 2026: PRS's analysis of the 2026-27 Demand for Grants for MoHUA notes that ISSR was merged with AHP under PMAY-U 2.0 [12].
• March 2026: MoHUA published a document listing the PMAY-U 2.0 verticals [11].
• November 2026: the 2026 policy is still awaiting notification [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• New JJ cluster eligibility cut-off in Delhi: 1 January 2025 [1][2].
• Previous cut-off according to the 2026 law's framing: 1 January 2006 [1].
• Cut-off under Delhi's 2015 policy: 14 February 2015 [6].
• The 2015 policy was renamed the Mukhya Mantri Awas Yojana [2].
• DUSIB counts 685 JJ clusters with 3.5 lakh households on about 800 ha [10].
• The 2026 policy is expected to benefit about 4 lakh families [2].
• ISSR treats "land as a resource", with central assistance of up to ₹1 lakh per house [3][4].
• The PMAY-U 2.0 verticals are BLC, AHP, ARH and ISS [11].
• Kalkaji Extension: 3,024 flats inaugurated on 2 November 2022, Delhi's first in-situ project, implemented by DDA [8][9].
• In December 2019, DDA was tasked with redeveloping 378 JJ clusters in-situ [7].
• Olga Tellis is a Supreme Court case; Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken are Delhi High Court cases [1].

8. Why Many Finished Slum Flats Stay Empty

• Building a flat is not the same as rehousing a family
• By December 2024, only 37% of the houses sanctioned under ISSR (In-Situ Slum Redevelopment, i.e. rebuilding on the same slum site) were complete [12].
• Of those finished houses, only about 30% were actually lived in [12].

• So fewer than one in eight sanctioned ISSR houses had a family living in it.

• The Standing Committee named three reasons

• The Standing Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs (2024) is a group of MPs that checks the ministry's work. It blamed incomplete infrastructure, houses not being allotted, and allottees not wanting to move in [12].

• Each reason is a failure of the 'urban life' the article talks about, not of construction. A flat without water, roads or a bus route is a flat people will not move into.

• Money given is not money spent

• PMAY-U spent on average 34% less than its budget between 2017-18 and 2025-26 [12].

• Underspending means people wait longer between demolition and a usable home. The article's rule of 'no demolition until a serviced home is ready' is meant to close exactly this gap [1].

• Why this matters for Delhi now

• About 4 lakh families may now qualify [2]. Delhi's first in-situ project, Kalkaji, delivered 3,024 flats [8][9].
• If Delhi only counts flats built and not flats occupied, it will repeat the national pattern.

9. Why Fixing the Cut-off Date Never Fixes Exclusion

• Each new cut-off date creates a new group of people left out
• The date has moved again and again: 2006, 2007 to 2009, 2014, 2015, and now 2025 [1][5][6].

• Any family that arrived one day after the new date is again an 'encroacher' (someone illegally living on public land). This happens even if they work and pay rent in the same city.

• Paper proof punishes the people who move most

• The 2015 policy asked for a name on the voter lists of 2002, 2007 and 2010 at the same address, plus a ration card and an income certificate [6].

• Renters, migrant workers and families evicted earlier rarely have that unbroken paper trail, so they fail even when they have lived in Delhi for years.

• A list that is never finalised can block even ready houses

• In Mumbai, the CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General, India's top public auditor) found that about 80,000 families on airport land were still not rehoused, about ten years after a developer was hired in 2007 [13].
• One reason: the Slum Rehabilitation Authority did not take over finished flats because the list of eligible residents was never finalised [13].
• Lesson for Delhi: a disputed beneficiary list can stall a project as badly as a shortage of money.

10. The Counter-Case: Does a 2025 Cut-off Reward New Encroachment?

• The strongest objection
• If the state keeps moving the date forward, people learn that settling on public land today may earn a free or cheap flat tomorrow.

• Land-owning agencies such as DDA (a central body) also need that land for roads, metro lines and other public works [10][7]. Every new eligible family raises the cost of clearing it.

• What is right about it

• The worry is fair. A rule that is changed every few years is not really a rule, and it invites both new settlement and lawsuits.

• A cut-off of 1 January 2025, fixed in late 2026, is close to an open door. It leaves almost no gap between arriving and qualifying [1][2].

• Why it still does not justify a strict early date

• Earlier, stricter dates did not stop slums from growing. The cut-off was moved at least five times, and DUSIB still counted 685 clusters [1][5][6][10].

• Shutting families out does not send them back to their villages. They move to the next informal settlement, so the city pays the cost again later.

• A better answer than 'early date or late date'

• Separate two questions: who gets an ownership flat, and who gets some housing.
• A fixed survey can decide ownership flats. Everyone else, including later arrivals, can be offered rental housing (for example the ARHC scheme). This takes away the reward for squatting without leaving people homeless.

11. Why Mumbai's Builder-Funded Model Fails on Cheap Land

• The model only works where land is expensive
• In ISSR, a private developer builds free flats for slum dwellers. In return the developer sells the extra flats on the same land. This is cross-subsidy (profit from one part pays for another part) [3].

• In Mumbai, some suburban projects were seen as not worth building because flats there sold for under ₹2,000 per sq ft [14].

• Delivery fell far short of the promise

• Mumbai built only about 1.5 lakh houses in 14 years, against a target of 8 lakh [14].

• Mumbai's target of being slum-free by 2015 was far off track as early as 2009 [14].

• The gap Delhi must fill if no developer comes

• Kalkaji cost about ₹345 crore for 3,024 flats, roughly ₹11 lakh per flat [8].
• Central ISSR help is only up to ₹1 lakh per house [4]. That is less than a tenth of the Kalkaji cost per flat.

• On land at the city's edge, developers may stay away. That leaves the state to pay, or quietly fall back on relocation. This is exactly the result the article's 'in-situ first' rule is trying to prevent [1].

• When a project depends on builder profit, the builder decides who matters

• Mumbai's projects have faced CAG criticism for long delays, and builders have been accused of irregularities [13][14].
• Delhi should keep land, planning control and the beneficiary list in public hands, and use builders only as contractors.

12. Who Should Do What Before the 2026 Policy Is Notified

• Delhi government and DUSIB: finalise one beneficiary list before building starts
• Mumbai's airport case shows that finished flats stay empty when the eligible list is still disputed [13].

• A single survey-based register, open to public objections, should be locked before work begins on site.

• MoHUA: pay for flats people live in, not just flats that are built

• The Standing Committee (2024) found low occupancy because infrastructure was incomplete [12].

• MoHUA (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs) could hold back the last instalment of central money until water, sewer, transport and a school or health centre are working.

• DDA and DUSIB: decide which agency is answerable for each cluster

• Clusters sit on land owned by different agencies, both central and Delhi government [10][7].

• The notified policy should name one agency responsible for each cluster, with deadlines for each step. Otherwise every agency can blame another for a delay.

• Delhi government: use rental housing for those the cut-off still leaves out

• This keeps the ownership date firm, which answers the counter-case above, without making later migrants homeless.

• Courts as the backstop

• Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken already require a survey and real consultation before any demolition [1]. Putting these steps into the notified policy would make them routine, so families would not have to go to court one by one.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Only 37% of sanctioned ISSR houses were complete by December 2024, and only about 30% of those were occupied [12]
• Data: PMAY-U spent on average 34% less than its budget, 2017-18 to 2025-26 [12]
• Data: Mumbai built about 1.5 lakh slum rehabilitation houses in 14 years, against a target of 8 lakh [14]
• Report/Committee: Standing Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs (2024): incomplete infrastructure, non-allotment and allottees unwilling to move [12]; CAG on Mumbai airport slum rehabilitation, about 80,000 families not rehoused [13]
• Law/Case: Article 21; Olga Tellis (Supreme Court); Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken (Delhi High Court) [1]
• Comparison: Mumbai SRA: builder-funded cross-subsidy that stalls where land is cheap [14]
• Scheme: PMAY-U ISSR, central help up to ₹1 lakh per house, against about ₹11 lakh per flat at Kalkaji [4][8]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-I: Urbanisation, its problems and remedies.
• GS-II: Government policies and interventions; welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; fundamental rights (Article 21).
• GS-III: Infrastructure (housing); inclusive growth.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Rehabilitation must restore an urban life, not merely allot a flat." Examine this in the context of slum resettlement policy in Indian metros. 2. Critically evaluate how cut-off-date-based eligibility shapes slum rehabilitation outcomes. Suggest a rights-based alternative. 3. Compare in-situ slum redevelopment with relocation. What lessons do the Mumbai and Delhi experiences offer?

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• PMAY-U 2.0 verticals (BLC/AHP/ARH/ISS): the central scheme Delhi's policy draws on.
• Mumbai's SRA model: the comparison the article explicitly calls for.
• Right to shelter under Article 21: the constitutional basis for the court rulings above.
• Affordable Rental Housing Complexes (ARHC): a rental alternative for migrants who fail the eligibility tests.
• Master Plan for Delhi 2041 / DDA: land-use rules that decide which clusters are "viable".
• Unauthorised colonies (PM-UDAY): a separate Delhi regularisation track that is easy to confuse with this one.
• SDG 11 / UN-Habitat: the global framework for slum upgrading.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Right to shelter (Polity): The article's Olga Tellis and court-ruling argument rests on shelter and livelihood as part of the right to life.
• Slum (Geography): JJ clusters are Delhi's slums; understanding what defines a slum clarifies who is being rehabilitated and why.
• PMAY-Urban (Polity): ISSR, the in-situ redevelopment vertical Delhi's policy draws on, sits under this central housing mission.
• Public-private partnership (Economy): In-situ redevelopment uses slum land as a resource and cross-subsidises housing through private participation.
• Right to life and personal liberty (Polity): Article 21 is the constitutional base from which courts derived shelter and livelihood rights for slum dwellers.
• Urbanisation (Geography): Slum growth and rehabilitation policy arise from rapid urbanisation and migrants unable to afford housing in cities.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Mixing up cut-offs: 2006 (pre-2026 legal framing), 14.02.2015 (2015 policy), 01.06.2014 (2015 PIB proposal) and 01.01.2025 (new) are all different dates [1][5][6].
• DDA vs DUSIB: DDA is a central body under MoHUA; DUSIB belongs to the Delhi government [10][7].
• Wrong court: Olga Tellis is a Supreme Court case. Sudama Singh and Ajay Maken are Delhi High Court cases, not Supreme Court [1].
• ISSR status under PMAY-U 2.0: sources disagree on whether it is a standalone vertical or merged into AHP. Check the latest MoHUA guidelines [11][12].
• Number of beneficiaries: about 4 lakh families come from the 2026 decision, while 3.5 lakh households is DUSIB's earlier count of cluster residents [2][10].