Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation||Case Summary||1985 3 SCC 545|| Eviction of slum Dwellers

Right to life

FACTS

The case arose when the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) decided to evict pavement and slum dwellers occupying public spaces in Bombay (Mumbai). Pursuant to that, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Mr. A.R Antulay ordered to evict the slum and pavement dwellers and deport them to their place of origin under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888. The petitioners, a journalist named Olga Tellis and some slum and pavement dwellers filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 1981 challenging the constitutional validity of the BMC’s eviction notices under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUES

1. Whether ‘Right to Livelihood’ is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution and whether pavement dwellers have a right to shelter or housing as per Article 21.

2. Whether evicting pavement and slum dwellers without providing alternative accommodation violates their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19 (1)(g).

3. Whether evicting slum and pavement dwellers is a reasonable restriction on their constitutional rights in the interest of public health and order under Article 19(5).

4. The invocation of Article 14 with regards to the rights of the slum and pavement dwellers.

5. Estoppel against fundamental rights or Waiver of fundamental rights which asks if the petitioners by conceding to the demolition of their huts had waivered their fundamental rights.

6. Constitutionality of the provisions under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888.

PROVISIONS OF THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1888

Section 312 of the act prohibits erecting structures or fixtures which cause obstruction on the streets while Section 313 of the act prohibits deposit or placing of things on the streets. Section 314 of the act gives the state the power to remove anything erected, deposited or hawked upon the streets without prior notice if found to be in violation of Sections 312 and 313.

RELEVANT ARTICLES

1. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty is guaranteed and protected from arbitrary deprivation of the same except if in accordance with the procedure established by law.

2. Article 19(1)(e): This article allows a citizen the freedom to reside and settle in any part of India.

3. Article 19(1)(g): This articles grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

4. Article 14: It guarantees equality before laws and the equal protection of laws by the state in the territory of India.

JUFGEMENT

The Court held that evicting the pavement and slum dwellers without proving alternative accommodation was in violation of their Right to Livelihood and incidentally, Right to Shelter. The Court also recognized the State’s duty to maintain public infrastructure and protect public spaces. It struck a balanced ruling wherein evictions are legal to carry out but must be carried out following a fair procedure and respecting the livelihoods of the people. Depriving them of an alternate place to stay would essentially be a violation of their Right to Life. The Court also concluded that the Rights protected under Article 19 (1)(e) and Article 19(1)(g) give further evidence to support the claim that Right to Life includes Right to Livelihood. The Court also held that no one has the right to encroach on public spaces and deemed Section 314 of the Bombay Municipality Act not unreasonable given the circumstances of the case. The judgement had far reaching consequences and established protection from state mandated eviction without providing alternate accommodation. 

Vinita Pathak