On January 20, the Supreme Court's division bench presided over by Justices Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, ordered the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar to provide the court with information about their winter plans and any temporary measures they have taken for the urban homeless. The submission by Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the bench that “It is estimated that more than one percent of the country’s population is homeless. With the onset of winter, I myself saw so many people out on the streets, sleeping in the biting cold,” while pleading with them to, among other things, order the North Indian states to provide status reports on the temporary steps they've taken to safeguard the homeless in metropolitan areas from the bitter winter. The northern and northwestern regions of the nation still suffer from the crippling cold wave conditions that had engulfed them last week as a backdrop.

The attorney emphasised that despite the highest court's efforts, several states had either essentially disregarded their rulings and the pertinent operation standards for establishing shelter homes for the homeless or had only nominally complied. Bhushan clarified:“There are two kinds of problems, one being the inadequacy of shelters, and the second, the condition of these shelters. These shelters are maintained in horrible conditions and have become hotbeds for diseases such as tuberculosis, which is why homeless people are reluctant to go there. There are also no separate shelters for single women.” In other states, like Delhi, the upkeep of shelters has been contracted out to private non-profit organisations; he also called the court's attention to the non-payment of arrears to these organisations.“Despite a contract between the government and the non-governmental organisation, the NGOs have not been paid in years and the outstanding amounts are now in the tune of crores,” Bhushan told the bench.

Bhushan further told the court that even though all states had been ordered to submit progress reports in October of last year, many of them had failed to do so and others had produced reports with important information missing. “17 states have not filed the status report, and the affidavits we got from the others are inadequate,” The National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM), which was developed by the central government in line with court orders in 2013, was formed by the government, the lawyer said, urging the court to instruct the states to file brief affidavits providing pertinent information regarding compliance. Details on the standards, different types of shelters, and amenities to be offered at the shelters were specified in the operational rules for the scheme.“We have specified the information that the states need to provide. They have to essentially give answers to the pointed questions we have asked on the population of the urban homeless, methodology of surveys, the number of urban homeless shelters provided, the total fund allocated and utilised for construction of shelters and their operation and management, pending dues to shelter management agencies, et cetera,” Bhushan stated. Additionally, he requested that each state in North India produce a status report on its "winter strategy" and any interim solutions for urban homelessness.

The bench said after accepting Bhushan's arguments,“It is hereby directed that the states shall file affidavits containing specific and pointed details with respect to the questions asked by the petitioner in their note. The court is also of the opinion that Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Bihar should file status reports/affidavits on their winter plan and temporary measures that have been initiated for the urban homeless as well the construction of temporary shelters. The affidavit on the above aspect should be filed within two weeks. List after two weeks.”

Case Title: E.R. Kumar v. Union of India 
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003

Appearance of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)
 Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
 Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s)
 Mr. Vinay Garg, AOR
 Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR
 Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, AOR
 Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR
 Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
 Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
 Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
 Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
 Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
 Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
 Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
 Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
 Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
 Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
 Ms. G. Indira, AOR
 Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
 Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
 Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR
 Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
 Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
 Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
 Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR
 Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR
 Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR
 Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR
 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR
 Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
 Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
 Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
 Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
 Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
 Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
 Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR
 Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR
 Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
 Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
 Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR
 Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR
 Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
 Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
 Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
 Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR
 Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR
 Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR
 Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR
 Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
 M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR
 Ms. Surbhi Kapoor , AOR
 Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
 Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
 Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR
 Mr. D.kumanan, AOR
 Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
 Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR
 M/S. K J John And Co, AOR
 Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR