On this page
- Conceptual Clarity
- 1. Scale & Causes of Displacement
- 2. Land Acquisition Law — Evolution
- 3. LARR Act 2013 — Key Provisions
- 4. National R&R Policy Legacy
- 5. Case Patterns of Displacement
- 6. Domestic Workers — Governance Gap
- 7. Urban Homelessness & DAY-NULM
- 8. Street Children & Beggary
- 9. Migrant Workers & Housing Precarity
- 10. Institutional & International Frameworks
- 11. Persistent Governance Challenges
- 12. Current Affairs Anchor
- Prelims PYQs
- Mains PYQs
- Revision Box
Conceptual Clarity — Before You Start
Migration is typically voluntary movement for perceived opportunity; displacement is involuntary relocation caused by development projects, disasters, or conflict. Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement (DIDR) is a distinct governance category attracting statutory compensation and rehabilitation obligations — ordinary economic migration attracts no such entitlement.
Resettlement is physical relocation — new land, housing, or infrastructure at a new site. Rehabilitation is the broader restoration of livelihoods, social networks, and standard of living disrupted by displacement. The LARR Act 2013 treats these as one integrated statutory obligation ("R&R"), not a one-time monetary payment for land alone.
"Domestic worker" is the governance/labour-law term that recognises the relationship as employment carrying rights. India has no dedicated central legislation for domestic workers; they are largely excluded from the direct coverage of the four new Labour Codes, despite repeated Rajya Sabha Standing Committee recommendations for a standalone law.
Displacement from floods/cyclones is governed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (relief-and-response framework); displacement from dams/mining/infrastructure is governed under the LARR Act, 2013 (compensation-and-rehabilitation framework). Mains answers frequently lose marks by treating these as interchangeable.
1.Development-Induced Displacement — Scale & Causes
Large dams, mining, industrial corridors, Special Economic Zones, and urban infrastructure projects have displaced an estimated 60 million+ people in India since Independence, per various academic and civil-society estimates (no single authoritative government count exists) — with historical rehabilitation coverage estimated at well under half of those displaced.
- Dams and irrigation projects: the single largest historical driver — Sardar Sarovar, Hirakud, Tehri, and hundreds of medium/minor projects.
- Mining: concentrated in mineral-rich, Fifth Schedule tribal-belt states (Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh), disproportionately displacing Scheduled Tribes (cross-link Topic 13).
- Industrial corridors and SEZs: large-scale agricultural land acquisition, often contested (Singur, Nandigram).
- Urban infrastructure: metro corridors, highways, and slum clearance drives — frequently affecting informal settlers without recognised land titles, who fall outside LARR's ownership-based compensation scheme.
2.Land Acquisition Law — Evolution
| Law | Key Feature |
|---|---|
| Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Colonial-era statute; acquisition for vaguely defined "public purpose" with minimal, often below-market compensation and virtually no statutory R&R obligation |
| National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy (NRRP), 2007 | First dedicated policy framework for R&R principles (non-justiciable policy, not a standalone Act) |
| Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013 | Replaced the 1894 Act; mandates Social Impact Assessment (SIA), tiered consent thresholds, integrated R&R package, and compensation at 2-4x market value |
| Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014-15 | Sought to exempt five categories (defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors, PPP infra) from SIA/consent requirements; lapsed after not being passed by Parliament — several states re-enacted similar dilutions via state amendments |
3.LARR Act, 2013 — Key Provisions
Consent Requirements
- Private projects: consent of at least 80% of affected families required.
- Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects: consent of at least 70% of affected families required.
- Government projects for public purpose: consent not mandatory, but Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is still statutorily required.
Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
A mandatory participatory study — conducted in consultation with the local Gram Sabha/local body — evaluating a proposed acquisition's impact on affected families, livelihoods, and public infrastructure before acquisition proceeds. An Expert Group appraises the SIA report before the appropriate government can proceed.
4.National Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy (NRRP) — Legacy
NRRP 2007 was India's first dedicated R&R policy framework, later substantially absorbed into the LARR Act, 2013. It established guiding principles — minimising displacement, exploring less-displacing alternatives first, ensuring participatory planning with affected communities, and adopting a "land for land" principle for agricultural land loss wherever government land was available. Being a policy rather than a statute, NRRP was not justiciable — a key reason LARR 2013 was subsequently enacted as binding law.
5.Displacement Due to Development Projects — Case Patterns
- Large dams: Sardar Sarovar/Narmada Valley Project — decades of R&R litigation culminating in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (SC, 2000), which permitted continued dam construction subject to R&R compliance monitoring.
- Mining displacement: concentrated in Fifth Schedule tribal-belt states; frequently intersects with the Forest Rights Act 2006 and PESA 1996 consent requirements (cross-link Topic 13).
- Urban displacement: slum demolition drives and metro/highway corridors — informal settlers lacking recognised land titles often receive minimal or no LARR-style compensation, since LARR's ownership-based framework does not neatly cover encroachment-based occupation.
- Disaster-induced displacement: floods, cyclones, earthquakes — governed separately under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 relief framework, not LARR, since it is not "development-induced."
6.Domestic Workers — A Persistent Governance Gap
India has an estimated 4.2 million+ domestic workers by informal/NSSO-adjacent estimates (likely undercounted given the sector's informality and household-based, largely unregistered employment), overwhelmingly women, and disproportionately drawn from tribal, Dalit, and inter-state migrant backgrounds.
- No dedicated central law: domestic workers remain excluded from direct coverage under the Minimum Wages Act (inclusion is state-specific, not uniform) and are not comprehensively brought within the four new Labour Codes' direct enforcement machinery.
- Domestic Workers (Registration, Social Security & Welfare) Bill: drafted and proposed on multiple occasions since the 2000s but never enacted — a recurring subject of Rajya Sabha Standing Committee recommendations.
- Sexual harassment protection: nominally covered under the POSH Act, 2013, though its "workplace"/Internal Committee framework was designed for organised establishments, creating interpretive gaps for private-household employment.
- State-level welfare boards: Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu operate state domestic worker welfare boards, but coverage remains patchy, non-uniform, and dependent on voluntary registration.
7.Urban Homelessness & DAY-NULM
Census 2011 recorded approximately 1.77 million homeless persons in India — a figure widely regarded by civil-society organisations and housing-rights researchers as a significant undercount, given the Census's point-in-time enumeration method and difficulty in capturing pavement dwellers and seasonal migrants.
The Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM) includes a dedicated Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) component, mandating permanent shelters with capacity benchmarked to city population (one shelter per lakh population as an indicative norm), providing free shelter, bedding, and access to basic services. Implementation gaps persist: audits consistently find shelter-bed capacity falling short of even the officially counted homeless population in most cities.
| Scheme | Focus |
|---|---|
| DAY-NULM (SUH component) | Permanent shelters for urban homeless |
| PM Awas Yojana (Urban) | Affordable housing; indirectly reduces long-term homelessness risk |
| National Urban Livelihoods Mission (broader) | Skill training, self-employment, SHG formation for urban poor |
8.Street Children & Child Beggary
Street children — estimated in a wide range from several hundred thousand to over a million (precise national data contested and outdated) — face overlapping vulnerabilities: trafficking, forced beggary, substance abuse, and exclusion from formal schooling.
- Governed primarily through the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015's "Child in Need of Care & Protection" category (cross-link Topic 12), triggering Child Welfare Committee (CWC) intervention rather than criminal-justice processing.
- Anti-trafficking provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the (pending) Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill address organised child begging/trafficking rackets.
- State-level Prevention of Begging Acts (e.g., Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, adopted with variations by several states) criminalise begging itself — widely criticised by child-rights and poverty scholars for penalising destitution rather than addressing its structural causes.
9.Migrant Workers & Housing Precarity
Circular and seasonal labour migrants — construction workers, brick-kiln workers, agricultural labourers — often experience housing precarity at destination sites that is functionally indistinguishable from homelessness (temporary worksite shelters, no tenancy rights, no access to urban civic amenities).
The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 — meant to mandate registration of migrant workers and licensing of labour contractors — suffered from chronically weak enforcement and registration, a gap starkly exposed during the COVID-19 reverse-migration crisis of 2020, when millions of unregistered migrant workers had no institutional mechanism for tracking, relief, or safe return. The Act has since been subsumed into the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (cross-link Topic 07).
10.Institutional Architecture & International Frameworks
| Institution/Framework | Relevance |
|---|---|
| District Rehabilitation Officer (under LARR) | Administers R&R implementation for land-acquisition-displaced families |
| e-Shram Portal | National database of unorganised workers, including domestic workers, enabling social-security convergence |
| National Commission for Women / NHRC | Complaint redressal for domestic-worker exploitation and abuse cases |
| UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 1998 | Non-binding global framework distinguishing Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) — displaced within national borders — from refugees, who cross international borders |
| ILO Convention No. 189, 2011 | Sets international labour standards specifically for domestic workers; India has not ratified it — a recurring point in mains-level critical analysis |
11.Persistent Governance Challenges
No Central Domestic Workers Law
Repeated draft bills have failed to secure passage despite Standing Committee endorsement.
R&R Implementation Gap
LARR's SIA and consent safeguards are frequently diluted through state-level amendments/exemptions.
Undercounted Homelessness
Census methodology fails to capture the true scale, undermining shelter-planning adequacy.
Criminalisation of Poverty
State begging laws penalise the homeless rather than addressing structural causes of destitution.
Weak Migrant Registration
Portability of welfare benefits remains incomplete despite One Nation One Ration Card.
ILO C189 Non-Ratification
India remains outside binding international standard-setting for domestic-worker protection.
12.Current Affairs Anchor (2024-26)
- Renewed parliamentary demand for a central Domestic Workers Welfare Bill following fresh Standing Committee recommendations (2025).
- DAY-NULM shelter-capacity audits continue to flag a persistent gap between the counted homeless population and available shelter beds in major cities (2025).
- State-level LARR amendments diluting consent/SIA clauses for infrastructure and industrial-corridor projects continue to draw judicial and civil-society scrutiny (2024-25).
- e-Shram portal registrations cross 300 million+ unorganised workers, including a growing share of registered domestic workers (2025).
- Supreme Court directions reiterating urban local body obligations on homeless-shelter adequacy ahead of extreme-weather seasons (2025).
13.Prelims PYQs
Consider the following statements regarding the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
1. It mandates a Social Impact Assessment for every land acquisition irrespective of project type.
2. Consent of 80% of affected families is required for acquisition for private companies.
3. Consent of 70% of affected families is required for acquisition under Public-Private Partnership projects.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1, 2 and 3
(d) 3 only
Answer: (b) — Statement 1 is incorrect: SIA is not mandatory for certain exempted categories, and government acquisitions for public purpose do not require consent (though SIA still applies to them, the blanket "irrespective of project type" claim regarding consent-linked SIA universality is the trap). Statements 2 and 3 correctly state the 80%/70% consent thresholds.
With reference to the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Urban Livelihoods Mission, consider the following statements:
1. It includes a Shelter for Urban Homeless component mandating permanent shelters linked to city population.
2. It is implemented exclusively through State Urban Livelihoods Missions with no central funding component.
3. Its primary target group is displaced persons under the LARR Act, 2013.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) — Statement 2 is incorrect: DAY-NULM is a centrally sponsored scheme with defined central-state funding shares. Statement 3 is incorrect: DAY-NULM's primary target is the urban poor/homeless broadly, not specifically LARR-displaced persons, who fall under a separate R&R framework.
Which of the following is/are among the stated objects of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?
1. Ensuring cumulative outcome of minimum displacement of people.
2. To provide adequate rehabilitation for affected families.
3. To ensure that the acquisition process is carried out in a transparent manner with due share of development benefits to affected families.
Select the correct answer using the code below.
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (d) — All three are explicitly stated objects of the LARR Act, 2013's preamble: minimising displacement, adequate R&R, and transparent, participatory acquisition with a fair share of development gains for affected families.
Consider the following statements regarding the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979:
1. It required licensing of contractors who recruit workers for employment in another state.
2. It mandated a displacement allowance and journey allowance for inter-state migrant workmen.
3. It has been repealed and fully replaced by a standalone Migrant Workers Code with no continuity in provisions.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) — Statements 1 and 2 correctly describe the 1979 Act's contractor-licensing and allowance provisions. Statement 3 is incorrect: the Act was not repealed into a standalone "Migrant Workers Code" — it was subsumed into the broader Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, which retains several of its protective provisions rather than discarding them entirely.
What is the purpose of a Social Impact Assessment under the LARR Act, 2013?
(a) To assess only the environmental impact of a proposed project
(b) To evaluate the impact of proposed land acquisition on affected families, livelihoods, and public infrastructure before acquisition proceeds
(c) To determine the market value of land for compensation purposes only
(d) To provide a forum for judicial review of completed acquisitions
Answer: (b) — SIA under LARR is a participatory, pre-acquisition evaluation of social and livelihood impact, conducted in consultation with the local Gram Sabha, distinct from environmental clearance (option a), compensation valuation alone (option c), or post-facto judicial review (option d).
Consider the following statements regarding rehabilitation and resettlement of development-displaced persons in India:
1. The National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 was a legally binding statute enforceable in courts.
2. LARR Act, 2013 substantially absorbed the principles of the 2007 policy into binding law.
3. "Land for land" is a principle adopted for agricultural land loss wherever government land is available.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b) — Statement 1 is incorrect: NRRP 2007 was a policy, not a statute, and was therefore not justiciable — this very limitation was a key reason LARR 2013 was enacted as binding law. Statements 2 and 3 are correct.
Consider the following statements about the "Shelter for Urban Homeless" component:
1. It falls under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Urban Livelihoods Mission.
2. Shelter capacity norms are indicatively linked to city population.
3. Shelters under this component charge a nominal user fee for bedding and services.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) — Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect: shelters and bedding under the SUH component are provided free of cost to the urban homeless, not on a fee basis.
With reference to consent requirements for land acquisition under the LARR Act, 2013, which one of the following statements is correct?
(a) Consent of 100% of affected families is required for all categories of acquisition
(b) Consent of 80% of affected families is required for private projects, and 70% for PPP projects; government acquisitions for public purpose do not require consent
(c) Consent thresholds apply uniformly at 75% regardless of project category
(d) Consent requirements were removed entirely by the 2015 Ordinance and never restored
Answer: (b) — This correctly states LARR's tiered consent structure. Option (d) is a trap: the 2015 Ordinance proposed exemptions but lapsed without Parliamentary passage, so the original consent thresholds under the 2013 Act remain the operative central law (though some states have separately diluted them via state amendments).
Which of the following bodies/mechanisms is/are involved in resettlement and rehabilitation of project-displaced persons under the LARR Act, 2013?
1. District Rehabilitation Officer
2. Expert Group for SIA appraisal
3. National Human Rights Commission as the exclusive statutory grievance authority
Select the correct answer using the code below.
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) — District Rehabilitation Officers administer R&R implementation, and an Expert Group appraises the SIA report — both are LARR-specific mechanisms. NHRC is a general human-rights body, not the exclusive statutory grievance authority under LARR specifically.
Consider the following statements regarding the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007:
1. It emphasised minimising displacement as a first principle before considering compensation.
2. It adopted "land for land" as a principle for agricultural land loss, subject to government land availability.
3. It was subsequently repealed without influencing any later legislation.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a) — Statements 1 and 2 correctly describe NRRP 2007's principles. Statement 3 is incorrect: NRRP was not simply repealed in isolation — its principles were substantially absorbed into the LARR Act, 2013, giving it continuing legislative legacy.
The Narmada Bachao Andolan, and the Supreme Court's 2000 judgment in that case, primarily concerned which of the following issues?
(a) Environmental clearance procedures for thermal power plants
(b) Rehabilitation and resettlement of persons displaced by the Sardar Sarovar dam project on the Narmada river
(c) Reservation policy in higher educational institutions
(d) Inter-state river water-sharing disputes exclusively
Answer: (b) — The case centred on the adequacy of R&R for people displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam; the Supreme Court permitted continued construction subject to R&R compliance monitoring, rather than halting the project outright.
14.Mains PYQs
Discuss the challenges of development-induced displacement in India and evaluate the adequacy of the LARR Act, 2013 in addressing them.
Model Answer Structure:
- Scale and drivers: quantify displacement from dams, mining, SEZs, and urban infrastructure; note disproportionate impact on tribal populations.
- LARR's design strengths: mandatory SIA, tiered consent thresholds (80%/70%), and integrated R&R (not compensation alone).
- Implementation gaps: state-level dilution of consent/SIA via amendments; weak grievance redressal for informal settlers without land titles.
- Sector-specific blind spots: disaster-displacement excluded (governed by DM Act 2005); urban slum-clearance displacement poorly covered.
- Comparative/international benchmark: UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as a normative reference India has not domesticated into binding law.
- Way forward: uniform national R&R monitoring mechanism; extending livelihood-restoration support to non-titleholder occupants.
"Migration of workforce from India creates opportunities as well as challenges for the government of India." Discuss with reference to internal and international migration.
Model Answer Structure:
- Internal migration opportunities: labour mobility to industrial/urban centres; remittance-driven rural welfare.
- Internal migration challenges: housing precarity, weak portability of welfare benefits (ration cards, healthcare), exposure exemplified by COVID-19 reverse migration.
- International migration opportunities: remittance inflows (India is the world's largest remittance recipient), skill/knowledge transfer.
- International migration challenges: brain drain in specific sectors, vulnerability of low-skilled migrant labour abroad (Gulf states) to exploitative contracts.
- Policy response: One Nation One Ration Card, e-Shram portal, Emigration Bill reforms.
- Conclusion: migration governance must balance labour-market flexibility with portable social protection.
Discuss the desirability and challenges of enacting a central law for domestic workers in India.
Model Answer Structure:
- Present status: no central law; state-specific Minimum Wages Act inclusion; exclusion from direct Labour Code coverage.
- Case for a central law: uniform minimum wage/working-hour standards, registration for social security access, formal grievance redressal.
- ILO C189 as normative benchmark: India's non-ratification and what a central law would need to align with.
- Implementation challenges: household-based employment resists conventional labour inspection; risk of employer non-compliance or informalisation.
- Existing partial models: state welfare boards (Maharashtra, Kerala) as possible templates.
- Conclusion: desirability is high given scale (4.2 million+ workers); design must balance enforceability with the unique private-household work context.
What are the impediments in ensuring timely and adequate rehabilitation for persons displaced by development projects? Suggest reforms.
Model Answer Structure:
- Legal impediments: exemptions/dilutions of SIA and consent via state amendments.
- Administrative impediments: understaffed District Rehabilitation Officer machinery; delayed R&R package disbursal.
- Structural impediments: informal settlers/non-titleholders falling outside LARR's ownership-based compensation.
- Monitoring gaps: absence of a uniform national R&R implementation tracking mechanism.
- Reforms: digitised R&R grievance portals, mandatory third-party social audits, extension of livelihood restoration to non-titleholders.
- Conclusion: reform must move from compensation-centric to livelihood-restoration-centric implementation.
Discuss the social and economic consequences of large-scale infrastructure-driven displacement in tribal regions of India.
Model Answer Structure:
- Social consequences: loss of community/kinship networks, cultural dislocation, breakdown of customary land-governance structures.
- Economic consequences: loss of forest-based and agrarian livelihoods; inadequate skill-transition support for cash-compensation-dependent families.
- Gendered impact: disproportionate burden on tribal women who lose customary land-use rights not always recognised in formal titles.
- Intersection with PESA/FRA: Gram Sabha consent requirements under PESA 1996 often bypassed in practice.
- Case reference: Narmada Valley, Odisha/Jharkhand mining belts.
- Way forward: community-based rehabilitation planning, not just individual-household compensation.
Discuss the role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the rehabilitation of development-displaced persons in India.
Model Answer Structure:
- Advocacy role: NGOs (e.g., Narmada Bachao Andolan) have historically driven R&R policy reform through sustained advocacy and litigation.
- Implementation-support role: facilitating SIA consultations, community mobilisation, and livelihood-restoration training.
- Monitoring/watchdog role: independent social audits of R&R package disbursal.
- Limitations: uneven geographic presence; risk of NGO-government adversarial relationships slowing implementation.
- Complementary, not substitutive role: NGOs cannot replace the state's statutory R&R obligations under LARR.
- Conclusion: institutionalised NGO-government partnership models (formal consultative status in SIA) would strengthen outcomes.
Discuss the various social problems faced by the urban homeless and street children in India, and evaluate the adequacy of current governance responses.
Model Answer Structure:
- Scale: Census 2011's ~1.77 million homeless figure and its acknowledged undercount.
- Problems faced: lack of shelter, exposure to extreme weather, exclusion from ration/healthcare access tied to fixed addresses.
- Street children specifically: trafficking risk, forced beggary, exclusion from schooling, substance abuse.
- Governance response — homeless: DAY-NULM's SUH component; persistent shelter-bed shortfall.
- Governance response — street children: JJ Act 2015's CWC-based "Child in Need of Care & Protection" mechanism.
- Critique and way forward: criminalisation under state Begging Acts is counterproductive; need for identity-document-linked social protection independent of fixed address.
Discuss the challenges faced in extending social security to unorganised-sector workers, including domestic workers, in India.
Model Answer Structure:
- Scale of the unorganised sector: 90%+ of India's workforce, including domestic workers, construction labour, and gig workers.
- Structural challenge: absence of a fixed employer-employee relationship in household-based domestic work complicates conventional social-security architecture.
- Legal gap: no central domestic workers law; state-specific, patchy welfare-board coverage.
- Portability challenge: migrant unorganised workers lose access to state-specific benefits when they relocate.
- Reform steps: e-Shram portal as a universal database; Code on Social Security 2020's (yet-to-be-fully-implemented) unorganised-worker provisions.
- Conclusion: registration-based universal portability, not sector-specific patchwork, is the durable solution.
Critically examine the causes and consequences of large-scale displacement due to development projects in tribal areas of India.
Model Answer Structure:
- Causes: location of dams/mines/forests predominantly in Fifth Schedule tribal-belt states.
- Consequences — economic: loss of forest-based livelihoods, inadequate compensation for common/community land not individually titled.
- Consequences — social: disruption of customary governance (Gram Sabha) and cultural practices tied to ancestral land.
- Legal-institutional dimension: tension between LARR's ownership-based compensation model and community/customary tenure recognised under FRA 2006.
- Case reference: Odisha (Niyamgiri), Jharkhand mining-belt displacement patterns.
- Way forward: mandatory Gram Sabha consent under PESA as a genuine (not procedural) safeguard before project clearance.
Discuss the salient features of the LARR Act, 2013 and evaluate its implications for the rights of project-affected persons.
Model Answer Structure:
- Salient features: SIA, tiered consent (80%/70%), integrated R&R, compensation at 2-4x market value, retrospective application clause.
- Rights strengthened: participatory consultation (versus 1894 Act's top-down acquisition), livelihood restoration beyond one-time payment.
- Persistent limitations: ownership-based compensation excludes informal/non-titleholder occupants.
- Implementation record: state-level dilutions since 2015 have weakened the Act's original safeguards in several states.
- Judicial reinforcement: courts have upheld SIA/consent requirements where challenged, but enforcement remains administratively weak.
- Conclusion: LARR represents a significant rights upgrade on paper; the implementation gap, not the statutory design, is the primary constraint.
India's ratification of ILO conventions has often been selective. Discuss with reference to labour standards for domestic and unorganised workers.
Model Answer Structure:
- Pattern of selective ratification: India has ratified core ILO conventions (forced labour, child labour) but not sector-specific ones like C189 (Domestic Workers, 2011).
- Reasons cited by government: concerns about enforceability given the informal, household-based nature of domestic work.
- Consequences of non-ratification: absence of binding international benchmark pressure; continued reliance on voluntary state welfare-board models.
- Comparative reference: countries that have ratified C189 (Philippines, South Africa) and their enforcement experience.
- Domestic legislative vacuum: repeated draft Domestic Workers Bills failing to pass despite Standing Committee recommendations.
- Conclusion: ratification alone is insufficient without domestic enforcement capacity — but it would provide normative and reporting-obligation pressure currently absent.
15.Revision Box — 15-Point Recap
- DIDR = involuntary displacement from development projects; distinct from voluntary migration.
- LARR Act 2013 replaced the 1894 Act — SIA mandatory; consent 80% private / 70% PPP / not mandatory for govt public-purpose.
- Compensation under LARR: 2-4x market value, integrated with R&R (resettlement + rehabilitation), not compensation alone.
- 2014-15 Ordinance sought SIA/consent exemptions for 5 categories; lapsed without Parliamentary passage.
- NRRP 2007 was a non-justiciable policy; its principles were absorbed into binding LARR 2013.
- Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (SC, 2000) — permitted dam construction subject to R&R compliance.
- No central domestic workers law in India; ILO C189 (2011) not ratified.
- 4.2 million+ domestic workers (estimate); excluded from direct Labour Code coverage.
- State domestic worker welfare boards exist in Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu — patchy, non-uniform.
- Census 2011: ~1.77 million homeless (widely considered an undercount).
- DAY-NULM's Shelter for Urban Homeless (SUH) component mandates permanent shelters linked to city population.
- Street children fall under JJ Act 2015's "Child in Need of Care & Protection" category (CWC-led, not JJB).
- State Begging Acts criminalise beggary — criticised for penalising poverty, not addressing root causes.
- Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act 1979 → subsumed into OSH Code 2020; COVID-19 exposed severe enforcement gaps.
- UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (1998) distinguish IDPs (within-border) from refugees (cross-border).