98
Delhi’s newly finalised Slum and JJ Cluster Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2026, marks one of the most ambitious attempts in recent years to restructure housing for the capital’s informal settlements. Targeting nearly four lakh families, the policy promises a transition from precarious slum living to formal, pucca housing through a mix of in-situ rehabilitation and selective relocation.
Announcing the policy, Union Home Minister Amit Shah described it as a corrective step in urban governance, stating that the initiative ensures “dignity and security of housing for every eligible slum dweller.” He added that the emphasis on in-situ rehabilitation reflects the government’s intent to prevent forced displacement and preserve livelihoods wherever possible.
At a structural level, the policy reflects a familiar but evolving urban strategy: integrating informal settlements into the formal city through redevelopment, while relying heavily on public-private partnerships to accelerate delivery. However, urban scholars argue that the scale of ambition now raises sharper questions about feasibility, spatial equity, and livelihood protection.
Urban researcher Dr. Meera Khanna observes that Delhi’s past rehabilitation efforts have struggled less with policy design and more with implementation outcomes. “The core issue has never been the absence of housing schemes,” she noted, “but the persistent failure to ensure that rehabilitated housing is actually liveable, connected, and socially sustainable.” According to her, the gap between “housing provision and urban integration” remains the central challenge.
The policy’s emphasis on in-situ rehabilitation is widely seen as a corrective to earlier models that relocated slum dwellers to peripheral colonies. Urban economist Prof. Arvind Menon argues that this shift is significant but incomplete in its conceptualisation. “In-situ rehabilitation is a positive direction, but proximity cannot be measured only in kilometres,” he said. “Even small spatial displacements can break daily livelihood systems that depend on walking-distance access to work markets.”
This concern becomes particularly relevant in Delhi’s informal economy, where many JJ cluster residents work as domestic workers, construction labourers, street vendors, and service providers. These livelihoods are deeply embedded in geography, often relying on proximity to affluent neighbourhoods or commercial hubs.
Housing rights analyst Rakesh Bhardwaj highlights that relocation outcomes will be decisive in determining the policy’s success. “If rehabilitation shifts families to poorly connected sites, you effectively convert a housing upgrade into an income shock,” he explained. “The economic cost of distance is often invisible in policy design but very real in household survival strategies.”
Another key feature of the policy is its dependence on public-private partnership (PPP) models for construction. While PPPs are intended to speed up delivery and reduce fiscal burden, urban planning experts caution against over-reliance on market-led execution. A Delhi-based urban policy researcher noted, “When housing welfare is tied to developer incentives, the risk is that speed and profitability begin to shape design decisions more than dignity or functionality.”
Comments are closed.