The reservation of 100% women in the government’s housing allocation program is unconstitutional; Discrimination against men and transgender people: the High Court of Andhra Pradesh


The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the government’s housing program which allocates house spaces exclusively to women is unconstitutional. they would be totally depriving them of their right to equality. », Observed the Court. This Court …

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the government’s housing program which allocates house locations exclusively to women is unconstitutional.

“Reservation of 100% of the allocation of the location of the house to housekeepers is contrary to the total concept of equality. Failure to assign the location of the house to transsexuals while ignoring them completely would be to deny their right to equality.. “, observed the court.

This Court is not against the allocation of land to women, but it amounts to discrimination, Judge M. Satyanarayana Murthy observed while calling on the government to consider the eligibility of men and transgender people to the allocation of land under the “Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu” program.

In accordance with clause 2 of the program, a Patta house site will be issued for a fee of 1.5 cents to an eligible household on behalf of the female beneficiary of the house. 129 people had approached the High Court to challenge the clause, saying it discriminated against men and transgender people over women in the allocation of the location of the house.

This amounts directly to depriving eligible men of claiming the benefit under

Agreeing with the assertions made by the applicant, the tribunal observed that the scheme was a direct result of depriving eligible men of claiming benefits under the scheme. He stated :

Given the hypothetical situation where a single, widower with children living below the poverty line, they are not entitled to claim benefits from the ―Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu‖ scheme. Whether this amounts to an equal distribution of resources is a question to be decided. If the principle stated by the Supreme Court in ―Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh‖ (mentioned above), this certainly amounts to discrimination between eligible men and women and they will forever remain homeless poor due to the denial of land subdivision under the ―Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki program Illu‖. Likewise, if a woman obtains a divorce after the allocation of land, the husband and children would remain homeless. These hypothetical situations have not been visualized and taken into consideration by the state when making such political decisions. Thus, this amounts directly to depriving eligible men of claiming the benefits of the said scheme, which is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the obligation incumbent on the State to distribute material resources among them. citizens equally, as prescribed in Article 39 of the Constitution of India

Refusing to allocate residential locations to transgender people is a violation of their fundamental rights

The court added that the refusal to allocate residential locations to transgendered people is a violation. It said:

In the case of transsexuals, most of them live below the poverty line and live by begging, without any shelter for their protection. They face a lot of humiliation for the treatment they received. Although it is the state’s obligation to take the necessary measures to treat transgender people equally with men and women, the state has taken no positive steps so far. The refusal to allocate house locations to transgender people is a violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India since article 15 speaks of men and women, but not transgender people, for the reason that the editors of the Constitution had not envisaged such a situation at the time of the preparation of the Constitution. from India

The court also observed that the allocation of a site of Ac.0.01 for residential use by the state in the municipal area and Ac.0.01 ½ cent in the areas of Gram Panchayat is inadequate. for housing and that due to collective housing and group housing, the environmental impact on health, fire risks, fire safety, the adequacy of drinking water and drainage facilities mud must be examined by the state before insisting that recipients build houses on their allotted land.

The court, on the privacy aspect, observed:

As the limited site is allocated to the household of eligible women, the right to privacy must be considered since the house is intended to live with the family to lead a marital life. The Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right. With regard to the law decreed by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the State to protect the private life of a couple’s married life in a small house with adult children and elderly people in the family. There will hardly be any space to move around the house freely, whether for children or for the elderly, who need help in old age.

The court therefore gave the following direction to the state:

(c) In addition, the State is responsible for appointing a special committee composed of experts from the Central Pollution Control Board; expert from the Ministry of Housing and Urban MSM, J wp_25275_2020 108 Business; Health expert from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to examine the issues addressed in the previous paragraphs, within one (1) month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, to submit a report within one (1) month thereafter and publish the report in two local newspapers inviting public objections and finalize the ―Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu‖ program for the construction of houses on the sites of the houses in taking into account the impact on the environment, health risks, etc. and increase / improve the area, if necessary by acquiring more site, allocated to beneficiaries by modifying the provisions taking into account the report to be submitted by the special committee. Until the completion of this exercise, the constructions will not be carried out on the land allocated to the beneficiaries under the ―Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu‖ regime.

Click here to read / download the judgment

About Michael B. Billingsley

Check Also

Turkey Leg Hut Cash App Booking Policy Sparks Outrage

She shared a screenshot of the email she received on Twitter and said “Houston, we …