The state government’s proposal to shift thousands of residents from Dharavi to the Deonar landfill—one of Mumbai’s most toxic and active waste sites—has ignited a fierce debate over the ethics and legality of urban rehabilitation. The proposed off-site relocation forms part of an ambitious redevelopment project that aims to transform one of Asia’s largest informal settlements into a modern urban enclave.
However, field assessments and records accessed through the Right to Information Act reveal that the plan potentially violates national environmental regulations, putting the health of an already vulnerable population at risk. The relocation, approved in late 2023 and involving between 50,000 to 100,000 residents, targets a zone that is still actively used for solid waste disposal. Deonar has long been infamous for its noxious fumes, spontaneous fires, and methane emissions, and remains under continuous observation by central pollution authorities. As per national guidelines issued in 2021, no residential or institutional structures are allowed to be built either within an operational landfill or within a 100-metre radius around it. The proposed relocation site not only flouts these rules but also threatens to expose citizens to serious respiratory and groundwater-borne illnesses, owing to the continued presence of toxic leachate and high methane concentrations. A recent report submitted to the environmental tribunal quantified methane emissions from Deonar at an alarming 6,202 kilograms per hour, placing it among the top methane emitters in the country.
The redevelopment project, touted as a transformative model for urban renewal, has so far mapped over 63,000 households and identified nearly 90,000 structures for rehabilitation. While much of the redevelopment promises in-situ upgrading, a significant portion of the population is now being considered for relocation to this hazardous zone, raising questions about whether the benefits of redevelopment are being extended equally and safely to all affected citizens. The selected relocation site has also raised human rights concerns, particularly in light of the existing socio-economic vulnerabilities of Dharavi’s residents, many of whom are informal workers, elderly, women-led households, and children. Critics argue that any displacement to unsafe zones further reinforces environmental injustice and perpetuates cycles of urban neglect.
The state’s plan, being executed under a seven-year framework, has also come under fire for bypassing wider public consultation and failing to demonstrate sustainable alternatives. Environmentalists and civic bodies insist that redevelopment efforts must align with broader commitments to sustainable urbanisation, including safe housing, inclusive planning, and net-zero targets. Placing entire communities adjacent to or on top of an active landfill contradicts the principles of environmental equity and raises the spectre of long-term health costs that could far outweigh any short-term infrastructural gains. While the redevelopment initiative remains a flagship urban project, its credibility now hinges on whether the authorities will recalibrate their approach in favour of holistic and humane urban transformation.
