"Delhi Building Tragedies Expose Systemic Urban Planning and Safety Failures"
Lal Dora
a colonial-era demarcation of village settlement land in Delhi, historically exempt from building regulations.
Urban village
a village settlement absorbed into a city's urban area but retaining its original land-use classification and informal governance character.
Urban governance in India operates across multiple layers: the Union government, state governments, and urban local bodies (ULBs) such as municipal corporations. The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 gave constitutional status to ULBs and listed urban planning, regulation of land use, and public health and sanitation among the functions to be devolved to them under the Twelfth Schedule. In practice, however, most states have not fully transferred these functions. Planning authority, building regulation, fire safety enforcement, and trade licensing often remain with different agencies, sometimes the municipal corporation, sometimes a development authority, sometimes a state department, with no single body holding coordinated responsibility.
Delhi's urban fabric is particularly complex. It includes planned colonies, unauthorised colonies, regularised unauthorised colonies, urban villages (governed historically under the lal dora system), and resettlement colonies. The Master Plan for Delhi is prepared by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The current plan, MPD-2021, permitted limited commercial activity in village abadis and regularised colonies under specific conditions. The forthcoming Master Plan 2047 proposes mixed-use development and commercial-centre renewal. However, the gap between what the plan permits and what actually exists on the ground has historically been wide. The concept of the Right to the City, which holds that residents of a city, including those in unauthorised settlements, have a legitimate claim to public services, safe infrastructure, and participation in urban decision-making, is directly relevant here. Crucially, the state cannot simply deny public services or safety protections to residents of unauthorised colonies; the obligation to ensure structural and fire safety extends to all occupied buildings, regardless of their formal planning status.
The Supreme Court's directions in the M.C. Mehta case (2006) addressed commercial misuse of residential premises in Delhi. These directions required public notice, an opportunity to stop misuse, and a structured enforcement process before sealing action. They were not designed to protect unsafe buildings, but they established that enforcement must be targeted, reasoned, and procedurally fair, not a blanket reaction to a disaster.
The core governance problem is what may be called the normalisation of planning failure. Cities grow faster than their formal planning frameworks. Small businesses, student accommodation providers, and informal entrepreneurs cannot afford rents in formally planned commercial zones. They occupy urban villages, peripheral settlements, and semi-legal spaces where demand exists but legal clarity does not. The state, rather than resolving this ambiguity, often tolerates it informally: it collects trade licence fees, utility charges, and property taxes from these establishments, effectively recognising their existence. When a disaster occurs, the same state then treats the entire ecosystem as illegal.
This creates a structural accountability gap. Multiple arms of government issue overlapping or contradictory approvals. A trade licence may be granted by the municipal corporation. A fire no-objection certificate may be required from the fire department. Building plan sanction rests with a different authority. Occupancy certificates are issued (or not) by yet another body. …
Consider the following statements:
1.'Right to the City' is an agreed human right and in this regard, UN-Habitat (United Nations Habitat) monitors the commitments made by each country.
2.'Right to the City' gives every resident of the city the right to reclaim public spaces in the city and public participation.
3.'Right to the City' means that the State cannot deny any citizen of any public service or facility from unauthorized colonies (bastis) of the city.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
'The local self-government system in India has not proved to be effective instrument of governance.' Critically examine the statement and give your views to improve the situation.
Consider the following statements regarding the 'Right to the City' concept:
1.It is a formally agreed binding human right under international law.
2.It gives every resident of a city the right to reclaim public spaces and participate in urban decision-making.
3.The State cannot deny any public service or facility to residents of unauthorised colonies in a city.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly matches the constitutional/statutory instrument with its primary urban governance function?
With reference to the Supreme Court's directions in the M.C. Mehta case concerning Delhi, consider the following statements:
1.The directions were primarily concerned with unauthorised construction above four floors in residential areas.
2.The directions required public notice and an opportunity to stop misuse before sealing action.
3.The directions contemplated a structured enforcement process for commercial misuse of residential premises.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements about the Master Plan for Delhi:
1.It is prepared by the Delhi Development Authority under the Delhi Development Act, 1957.
2.The Master Plan for Delhi 2021 prohibits all commercial activity in village abadis and regularised unauthorised colonies.
3.The forthcoming Master Plan 2047 proposes mixed-use development and commercial-centre renewal.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account