The Silent Emergency: Housing Affordability and the Homelessness Challenge in India

The Indian urban fabric has been characterised by a paradox over the past decade. While the Indian sky is dotted by a rising number of upscale sky-high towers and the explosive growth of Tier-II cities like Bengaluru and Gurugram, a large chunk of the population is being deliberately denied access to affordable housing. The problem of housing unaffordability and homelessness is more than a localised marketplace failure. It is a deeply challenging problem that cuts India's commitment to the promise of ‘life with dignity’ under Article 21.

Housing as a Constitutional Right, Not a Market Privilege

The key legislation that is being pursued in order to meet the massive demand in Indian housing is the ‘Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana’ or ‘PMAY.’ The shift to ‘PMAY-U 2.0’ is the most important change in the approach of the government, since its launch in September 2024. The new mission has the aim of constructing 1 crore ‘pucca’ houses for the poor and the middle class, in the next five years, with financial aid of  INR 2.50 lakh per unit from the Centre. The judiciary has reaffirmed this in the following cases. Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is a part and parcel of the right to life, and for people living in urban areas, this right to livelihood is inextricably intertwined with the place of dwelling. This position was reinforced in the case of Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P. (1996), wherein the Court held that the right to shelter under Article 21 is by no means the right to an umbrella, but the right to an environment that enables a human being to grow physically, mentally, and intellectually.

PMAY-U 2.0: Promise, Progress, and Persistent Gaps

Since 2014, India’s housing strategy has undergone a radical shift from fragmented schemes to the mission-mode execution of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). While earlier efforts struggled with limited reach, the current government has successfully delivered millions of homes by integrating Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT) and geo-tagging, proving that with political will and technological scale, 'Housing for All' is transitioning from a distant ideal to an achievable policy goal.In terms of policy design, PMAY-U 2.0 is groundbreaking because it breaks away from conventional support for both Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low Income Groups (LIG) and designs benefits for Middle Income Groups (MIG) based on interest subsidy support. Nevertheless, an important legislative issue today is the underutilization of 55% of funds under the PMAY-Urban Revised Estimates for the year 2024-25. There are some irreparable bottleneck problems of delay in the acquisition of land at best at the state administrative level.

Global Benchmarks: Housing as Social Infrastructure

Comparative global evidence shows that the affordability of housing increases if the state considers it as social infrastructure, not a market good. In Vienna, about 60 per cent of the population lives in subsidised and rent-regulated apartments. This has ensured that even the rented apartments in the downtown area have stable rent. Singapore's public housing project is the best example that if the state has control over the land for a long term, it is possible for it to provide affordable housing that is well-connected. Brazil’s “Minha Casa Minha Vida” is another initiative that asserts that if transportation, employment, and social infrastructure are developed around the houses, the performance on housing increases.

The "Post-Financialisation" of Real Estate: Moving the Goalposts

The economic realities for the average Indian metropolitan city are becoming increasingly dreary by the day. According to a 2025 Reuters poll of real estate experts, average prices for properties in India are set to increase by 7% in 2026. This largely gets propelled by a post-pandemic surge in the high-end segment of housing classes, with significantly stalled dispositions among the lower and middle classes.

However, for those that fall at the base of the economic pyramid, the "post-financialisation" of the property market has changed the rules and moved the goalposts in regard to homeownership. The post-financialisation of the property market can be understood as the process through which there has been an increasing treatment of the residential property market as a financial asset class, and not merely as a basic need. The purpose of buying properties is not habitation, but investment and storage of wealth.

The average age of eligibility for a first-time buyer in big cities has gone up from 30 to 45 years old. This has resulted in what is referred to as the "renter’s trap," where the cost of rent in big cities is increasing between 5 and 8% each year, sometimes even higher than the inflation rate. As a result, low-paid workers are faced with the problem of "frustrated options," where they have no choice but to live in unsanitary conditions in order to stay as close as possible to the big city. The increasing value of properties mainly benefits land developers, large land owners, and state governments that benefit from land auctions, premiums, and taxation systems. On the other hand, land procurement for affordable housing is often put on the back burner due to legal disputes, politico-political procrastination, and social unrest, thereby making peripheral land the only alternative for land procurement. The focus on housing rentals continues to remain less prioritised due to alignment with electoral politics, in contrast to the more transient nature of housing rentals by migrants.

Invisible Citizens: Homelessness Beyond Policy Headcounts

Though PMAY identifies those families who can avail themselves of the market with the assistance of the government, the chronic homeless population remains invisible to mainstream policy responses. The last official count of homelessness was done by the Census of 2011, and it identified that there were around 1.77 million homeless citizens of India. But social headcounts put these numbers into stark contrast.

In Delhi alone, a census conducted in 2024 by Shahri Adhikar Manch: Begharon Ke Saath showed that there are in excess of 300,000 persons living on the streets, which is close to 1.58% of Delhi's total population. In terms of government policies, there is, of course, the Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless (SUH) under the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM). Regardless, the existing national infrastructure of some 1.41 lakhs of beds is no match for what is true in a sole megalopolis like Delhi. Also, it should be noted that in most cases, people can only access shelter services if they have a photo ID or an address card. This means many individuals who contribute to building the city are denied any permanent recognition or status in urban life. Urban scholars contend that housing crises occur because they are structural issues that do not happen by accident. 

Three Paradoxes Shaping India’s Urban Housing Crisis

There are three trade-offs and paradoxes that arise from these present circumstances:

1. Affordable vs. Accessible: Many "affordable" housing projects sanctioned are being packed off to the very margins of cities, where land is cheaper. But the real, unseen costs of accessing these housing projects, along with their complete lack of public transportation, make them unlivable for the poor, resulting in a large vacant inventory of government-built housing projects.

2. Social Justice vs Ease of Doing Business: Even as the government tries to lure foreign capital into the property industry to raise economic growth, the "crony capitalism" seen in land ownership stops such prime land in cities from being used for affordable housing.

3. The Rental Housing GAP: India currently lacks a unified national policy that supports the development of Affordable Rental Housing (ARH). In general, for its mobile and migrant workforce, home ownership is sometimes not the priority, but the provision of assured and affordable rentals is the missing link within the national housing policy paradigm.

These paradoxes persist not only because of the government’s failure to address them, but also because they are in the interests of certain sections within the political economies concerned. The urban real estate sector is a vital engine for economic growth and state revenue. However, when private accumulation takes precedence over public need, the housing requirements of the poor are often relegated to the political periphery.

The high value of this sector’s commodity benefits the concerned developers’ community, land owners, and the financial sector. The housing needs of the poor in the city do not form a high priority on the government’s political agenda because the migrant population in cities has insignificant voting power in the concerned city’s governing structures.

Legislative Pathways: Policy Reforms for Inclusivity

In order to transform India's housing landscape from a "slow-motion public health disaster" into a driver of inclusive growth, the following legislative pillars should be leading:

• Land Reforms: Inclusionary Zoning and Digitisation Law should make Inclusionary Zoning mandatory, where in every luxury project, the developer is required to give a certain percentage of units for EWS/LIG categories. This needs to be supported by speeding up digitised land records through programs like DILRMP to rule out "land mafias," reduce bureaucratic delays in acquisition, and make urban land prices stabilise with transparency.

• Rental Housing: Expanding the Safety Net. India does not have a strong national framework. for Affordable Rental Housing. New legislation should create incentive structures for institutional rental housing that would facilitate safe habitation for migrant workers without the immediate burden of ownership. This is of particular importance for the nomadic labour force that keeps our "post-financialised" cities alive.

• Finance: Portability of Social Security. A significant problem facing migrant workers is the lack of portability of their social security across state borders. The changes in legislation should ensure the introduction of Portable Social Security so that housing subsidies and credit-linked benefits accrue to the worker-migrant and not to the place where he or she lives. Similarly, a "follow-the-worker" approach avoids the erosion of housing status during migration.

• Governance: Accountability and Transparency. Single-window approaches are needed in the streamlining of ownership processes, along with the integration of land records with Aadhaar to avoid perverse transactions. Strengthening the ULBs through legislative empowerment will make sure that "Housing for All" becomes not only a central mission but also more localised with accountability.

  
  

Conclusion: Beyond Buildings, Towards Dignity

The “Vision Viksit Bharat 2047" stresses inclusive growth, better quality of life, and sustainable urban development, tacitly understanding that housing is one of the basic pillars for this development and progress in the country. Although the current policies understand the importance of necessary urban changes, it is crucial to note that, without emphasising housing, inclusivity, or access in urban development, progress without dignity may become a reality in their growing urban zones. At the end of the day, housing is not simply about walls and a ceiling; it is about having the ability to have a safe, healthy, and productive life. As India looks towards creating a Viksit Bharat, how we measure success in our urban policy initiatives must not lie in how tall our buildings reach but in how effectively we ensure each of our citizens has a place where they can feel safe. Ultimately, the success of a developed India cannot be measured by the height of its skylines if millions of its citizens still sleep beneath them.