Authors: Boitumelo Mmusinyane
Addresses: College of Law, Department of Private Law, UNISA, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria 0003, South Africa
Abstract: India and Canada have adopted diverse approaches to realising the right to adequate housing. In Canada, the right to adequate housing is not entrenched under its Constitution and is merely pursued through policy-driven objectives that are not amenable to a judicial review to establish whether or not these policy objectives have been fulfilled. This approach is inadequate and this article argues that it leaves the marginalised victim with little hope of finding any remedy. In India, however, the right to shelter is regarded as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy and its courts have seized their judicial powers of review to ensure justiciability by interpreting existing constitutional provisions to safeguard the right to shelter. This paper will illustrate that the Canadian judiciary can invoke and draw inspirations from the Indian judicial system to determine if its policy measures fulfil the stated objectives.
Keywords: housing; judicial review; justiciability; India; Canada; Indian Constitution; constitutional law; rights enforcement; Canadian Constitution; policy-driven objectives; marginalised victims; legal remedies; shelter; directive principles; state policy; law courts; judicial powers; judiciary; judges; judicial interpretation; constitutional provisions; legal safeguards; human rights; judicial systems; policy measures; public law; public policy.
International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 2012 Vol.2 No.2, pp.162 - 175
Received: 08 May 2021
Accepted: 12 May 2021
Published online: 23 Feb 2012 *