A/HRC/34/51/Add.1 based discrimination means that there are still women and men from scheduled castes cleaning public and private toilets, collecting excrement in pits, latrines and open drains who, as a result of their activities, suffer from deplorable housing and living conditions. While the practice has complex roots, people practising manual scavenging are bound by insurmountable social pressure to continue their family’s degrading tasks and are assigned that role, at the lowest rank of a hierarchical society, especially in small villages. In part, the failure to effectively eradicate the practice is the result of the difficulty encountered in enforcing central government legislation at the state and local levels.52 V. Access to justice 74. Most people who are inadequately housed or homeless have relatively little legal knowledge or information, particularly about human rights relating to housing. Despite the Constitutional reference to equal justice and free legal aid (article 39A), the legal aid system for those living in poverty is only marginally effective, limiting access to courts to the availability of public interest representation by civil society. In addition, a substantial backlog of pending cases within the judicial system has rendered access to justice for the poor a continuing challenge. 75. According to information received by the Special Rapporteur, there are very few avenues to challenge government decision-making with respect to housing matters. For example, residents of informal settlements who are deemed ineligible for the Housing for All scheme have no complaint mechanism, even when they meet the criteria for the scheme, making it difficult to hold governments accountable for their decisions. 76. In the context of evictions, access to justice also appears to be limited. There is no clear national policy or legislation on due process requirements prior to eviction, which are required under international human rights law. Persons who have been evicted have no avenue of redress if they are denied rehabilitation or compensation. While it is possible to submit written appeals and complaints at state level, they are often delayed, and there is a general lack of transparency regarding inadequate rehabilitation. 77. The Special Rapporteur commends several Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed the right to housing through the Constitutional provision of the right to life. While the courts have taken divergent decisions about the right to housing and have recently sanctioned numerous demolitions, the Supreme Court and several High Courts have issued progressive judgments in keeping with the right to adequate housing under international human rights law. 78. For example, in 2010 the Delhi Court released two judgments affirming Constitutional protections for the right to housing, noting that adequate housing serves as the crucible for human well-being and development and affirming that prior to an eviction, rehabilitation sites with access to infrastructure, services and amenities and a decent living must be found.53 79. The Supreme Court has also issued several important judgments affirming the right to housing. In the “right to food case”,54 as it is commonly known, the Supreme Court took 52 53 54 18 Human Rights Watch, “Cleaning human waste: manual scavenging: caste and discrimination in India”, 25 August 2014. Available from www.hrw.org/report/2014/08/25/cleaning-humanwaste/manual-scavenging-caste-and-discrimination-india. See High Court of Delhi, Sudama Singh and Others v. Government of Delhi and Another, and P.K. Koul v. Estate Officer and Another. See Supreme Court of India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Others.