Court censures Municipal Corporation for inadequate compliance with orders on implementation of 2008 government housing policy for sanitation workers; mandates fresh affidavit with specifics on municipal lands to facilitate housing projects.
In a significant ruling dated August 31, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Dr. Neela Gokhale) has taken a stern view of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai’s (MCGM) failure to implement a State Government policy aimed at providing ownership-based housing to its sanitary workers. The policy, formulated in 2008, recognizes the sanitary workers as a vulnerable and marginalized workforce deserving of dignified living conditions, a mandate the Municipal Corporation has neglected for nearly 18 years.
The Court was hearing multiple writ petitions, including one filed by Chandan Sharad Pawar and others, seeking enforcement of the Government Resolution (GR) dated 22nd October 2008. This GR obligated the MCGM to provide housing to sanitary workers, a class of employees who perform critical public health functions but remain at the lowest hierarchy and have been systematically deprived of benefits.
Despite clear and unambiguous orders from the High Court on August 10, 2026, directing the Municipal Commissioner to file an affidavit detailing all municipal lands available for implementing the housing scheme, the affidavit submitted on the latest hearing date was found to be grossly inadequate and non-compliant. The affidavit failed to provide specific and actionable information about the lands under the control of MCGM, including leasehold and tenanted properties and those earmarked under the sanctioned Development Plan.
The Court expressed surprise and regret over the Municipal Commissioner’s refusal to supplement the affidavit with further details, especially after prior undertakings to take stock of lands that could be used for housing the sanitary workers. The Municipal Commissioner’s stance that no additional information was available was not accepted by the Court. The judges underscored that the Municipal Corporation, which controls thousands of properties and lands, including about 4,176 leasehold properties, 3,505 tenanted properties, and approximately 8,000 amenities earmarked for public use, must identify suitable lands for the housing scheme.
The Court emphasized the constitutional principles that forbid discrimination against this marginalized workforce and stressed the importance of respecting and implementing state policy aimed at safeguarding their dignity. It also noted the unfortunate history of municipal lands being lost from public pools due to encroachments and unauthorized dealings, contrasting it with the ongoing denial of housing benefits to the sanitation workers.
Directing the Municipal Commissioner to file a comprehensive and detailed affidavit within three weeks, the Court sought a list specifying the available lands, their current occupancy status, and suitability for housing development. The Court also indicated the possibility of constituting an independent committee to scrutinize the usage and utility of all municipal lands to ensure the effective implementation of the housing policy.
The matter has been adjourned to September 9, 2026, for further hearing, with the Court reserving the right to pass appropriate orders based on the fresh affidavit and submissions.
This landmark judgment highlights the judiciary’s proactive role in upholding the rights of marginalized workers and ensuring government policies translate into tangible benefits. It sends a strong message to the Municipal Corporation and other public authorities about their obligations under administrative law and the Constitution to protect the welfare of vulnerable employees.
Bottom Line:
Municipal Corporation obligated to provide housing to sanitary workers under Government policy; neglect of such marginalized workforce violates constitutional principles. Court directs Municipal Corporation to file a detailed affidavit identifying lands for implementation of housing policy.
Statutory provision(s):
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act;
