In line with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution, the government has a constitutional obligation to ensure basic needs – "Roti, Kapda aur Makan (Food, Clothes and Shelter)" – for the under-privileged. Pursuing this mandate, the district administration proposed clearing a portion of forest land to develop housing for the homeless and economically weaker sections of the society. The proposed land, however, is an ecologically sensitive zone densely populated with age-old trees, medicinal plants and vital biodiversity. Besides, these forests help to regulate micro-climate and rainfalls; provide habitat for wildlife, support soil fertility and prevent land/soil erosion and sustain livelihoods of tribal and nomadic communities. Inspite of the ecological and social costs, the administration argues in favour of the said proposal by highlighting that this very initiative addresses fundamental human rights as a critical welfare priority. Besides, it fulfils the government's duty to uplift and empower the poor through inclusive housing development. Further, these forest areas have become unsafe due to wild-animal threats and recurring human-wild life conflicts. Lastly, clearing forest-zones may help to curb anti-social elements allegedly using these areas as hideouts, thereby enhancing law and order. (a) Can deforestation be ethically justified in the pursuit of social welfare objectives like, housing for the homeless? (b) What are the socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges in balancing environmental conservation with human development? (c) What substantial alternatives or policy interventions can be proposed to ensure that both environmental integrity and human dignity are protected?

Model answer

Paper viewText view

2 pages3 pagesDetailedPDF

Exam length · 279wShort · 166wFull · 534w

Ghissu Editorial · Verified 4 Oct 2026 · 279 words

Q1.

In line with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution, the government has a constitutional obligation to ensure basic needs – "Roti, Kapda aur Makan (Food, Clothes and Shelter)" – for the under-privileged. Pursuing this mandate, the district administration proposed clearing a portion of forest land to develop housing for the homeless and economically weaker sections of the society. The proposed land, however, is an ecologically sensitive zone densely populated with age-old trees, medicinal plants and vital biodiversity. Besides, these forests help to regulate micro-climate and rainfalls; provide habitat for wildlife, support soil fertility and prevent land/soil erosion and sustain livelihoods of tribal and nomadic communities. Inspite of the ecological and social costs, the administration argues in favour of the said proposal by highlighting that this very initiative addresses fundamental human rights as a critical welfare priority. Besides, it fulfils the government's duty to uplift and empower the poor through inclusive housing development. Further, these forest areas have become unsafe due to wild-animal threats and recurring human-wild life conflicts. Lastly, clearing forest-zones may help to curb anti-social elements allegedly using these areas as hideouts, thereby enhancing law and order. (a) Can deforestation be ethically justified in the pursuit of social welfare objectives like, housing for the homeless? (b) What are the socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges in balancing environmental conservation with human development? (c) What substantial alternatives or policy interventions can be proposed to ensure that both environmental integrity and human dignity are protected?20

Introduction

The core dilemma is between Human Dignity, shelter for the homeless under the Directive Principles, and Ecological Integrity, the forest Article 48A asks the State to protect.

(a) Can Deforestation Be Ethically Justified for Housing?

•

Weak utilitarian case

Houses can be built anywhere, but old-growth forest cannot be rebuilt in a lifetime.

•

Fails proportionality

Puttaswamy (2017) demands the least harmful means, and alternative land exists.

•

Shifts deprivation

Forest-dependent tribals would lose rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

•

Weak side reasons

Wildlife conflict and crime are problems of habitat management and policing, not reasons to clear forest.

(b) Challenges in Balancing Conservation and Development

•

Socio-economic

Housing need is visible and urgent, while ecological loss is slow and diffuse.

•

Administrative

Diversion needs Forest (Conservation) Act approval and Gram Sabha consent, as in Niyamgiri (2013).

•

Ethical

Present needs collide with Brundtland's (1987) intergenerational equity.

(c) Alternatives That Protect Both Environment and Dignity

Human Dignity vs Ecological Integrity. Venn diagram: Human Dignity, Ecological Integrity; overlap: Homes on non-forest land

•

Shift the site

Use brownfield land, land banks and vacant urban houses, which Census 2011 put at over one crore.

•

PMAY tools

Use the rental housing and partnership verticals of PMAY-Urban 2.0 (2024).

•

Forest partners

Settle FRA claims and involve dwellers in community forest management.

Justification:

Rawls's Difference Principle: helping the homeless must not push the poorer forest dweller further down.

Conclusion

The State honours its constitutional morality only when it secures shelter for the living without spending the forest held in trust for the unborn.

This model answer is indicative and the model can make mistakes; please verify key facts independently.

Question from the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2025 paper. Answer written by Ghissu's engine and checked against our editorial standards. Found an error? Tell us and we correct it within 48 hours.