Consider the following statements : 1. 'Right to the City' is an agreed human right and the UN-Habitat monitors the commitments made by each country in this regard. 2. Right to the City' gives every occupant of the city the right to reclaim public spaces and public participation in the city. 3. 'Right to the City' means that the State cannot deny any public service or facility to the unauthorized colonies in the city. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

States that new rights evolve over time and some international covenants have contributed to expansion of rights, indicating that recognition of novel rights is a process.

A student could use this rule to check major international covenants (e.g., UDHR, ICESCR) and later UN declarations to see whether "Right to the City" has been incorporated as a recognized right.

The UDHR is presented as a universal standard proclaimed by the UN, showing that UN proclamations can establish common standards of human rights.

Use this pattern to examine whether the UN General Assembly or similar UN instruments have proclaimed or defined a "Right to the City" as a common standard.

Notes that international covenants may recognise rights not in domestic constitutions and that some instruments are seen as standards even before becoming treaties.

A student could check whether any UN texts or covenants mention the concept even if it hasn’t been formalized into a binding treaty.

Explains that legal recognition depends on government support and law, highlighting the difference between moral claims and legally enforceable international rights.

Apply this distinction to see if "Right to the City" exists as a moral/advocacy claim versus being legally binding under international law.

Describes the role of international NGOs in advocacy and in building coalitions that can push for recognition of rights at the international level.

Investigate whether NGOs or coalitions have campaigned for "Right to the City" in UN fora or influenced any UN instruments or soft-law documents.

Explains that rights to hold public meetings and demonstrations can be exercised only on public land but are subject to conditions (peaceful, unarmed) and reasonable state restrictions for public order.

A student could use this rule to test whether a claimed collective 'right to reclaim' public spaces would be lawful only if it met peaceful/administrative conditions and survived public-order restrictions.

States the general principle that individual freedoms cannot be exercised in ways that violate others' rights or cause public nuisance; the government may impose reasonable restrictions in larger societal interest.

One could apply this limitation to argue that any broad 'right to reclaim' public spaces would be constrained where it injures others or creates nuisance, so blanket entitlement is doubtful.

Describes overlapping rights to residence and movement and repeatedly notes that such rights are subject to reasonable state restrictions in the interest of the general public.

A student might extend this to check whether occupation-based claims (reclaiming space) would be treated as residence/movement rights and thus subject to similar restrictions.

Shows that property-related rights have historically been constitutional but also subject to law and public necessity (e.g., deprivation allowed by law for public necessity).

Use this pattern to probe whether 'reclaiming' public spaces implicates property rights and whether the state can lawfully regulate or deprive certain uses on public-necessity grounds.

Presents a concrete conflict: citizens seeking slum removal/beautification vs slum dwellers invoking right to life, illustrating how claims over urban space trigger competing public-interest and individual-rights arguments.

A student can use this example to explore how courts balance collective urban-improvement claims against occupants' rights when considering whether occupants can 'reclaim' or retain public/urban spaces.

Describes a concrete example where 'any citizen of the city can participate' in meetings that discuss the city budget and proposals, showing a model of direct public participation in urban decision-making.

A student could compare this participatory budgeting example to the 'Right to the City' claim to see whether such direct participation is presented as a general rule or only as a specific practice that may or may not be universal.

Explains that political rights enable people to influence government but that these rights are meaningful only when basic needs (food, shelter, health) are met, implying limits on effective participation for occupants who lack basic necessities.

One could use this rule to judge whether 'every occupant' realistically can exercise a right to participate, especially among the urban poor, by checking levels of deprivation in a given city.

Highlights that urban poor (slum-dwellers, squatters) are a distinct group whose inclusion as full members with guaranteed basic rights is contested, indicating possible exclusion or unequal access to participation.

A student might examine whether the 'Right to the City' framework explicitly includes such groups or whether practical barriers prevent their participation in urban decisions.

States the democratic principle of representative participation — citizens choose representatives through elections — distinguishing representative channels from direct participation in decision-making.

Use this to test the claim by asking whether 'Right to the City' means additional direct participation rights beyond standard representative mechanisms or is limited to electoral representation.

Presents a legal conflict between a citywide 'public interest' claim and slum residents' right to life, showing that courts adjudicate competing urban claims and that rights to urban change are not automatic for petitioners.

A student could use this example to probe whether the 'Right to the City' would override other legal rights or whether participation claims will be balanced against other protections in practice.

States that citizens are free to reside and settle in any part of India; residency is protected against arbitrary deprivation of life/liberty.

A student could combine this with the concept of 'right to the city' to ask whether denial of services to residents of unauthorized colonies would undermine their protected right to reside.

Affirms the constitutional principle that persons similarly situated must be treated similarly and government services cannot be denied on arbitrary grounds.

One could extend this equality rule to question whether withholding public services from residents of unauthorized colonies constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Presents a concrete tension: municipal actions to remove slums/beautify the city versus slum residents' right to life, showing courts balance urban management and basic rights.

A student might use this example to argue that measures affecting informal settlements (including denial of services) must be weighed against residents' fundamental rights.

Explains that fundamental freedoms may be subject to 'reasonable restrictions' in the interests of public order/traffic etc., indicating the State can lawfully restrict rights within limits.

One could test whether denial of services to unauthorized colonies could be framed as a 'reasonable restriction' for legitimate public interest (e.g., planning, safety).

Describes state and local bodies' powers over urban land and provision of infrastructure, showing an administrative basis for distributing services and setting conditions.

A student could combine this administrative-power pattern with on-ground facts about urban governance to assess whether denial of services is an exercise of those powers or an unlawful exclusion.