Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation
Case Name:
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 1985 AIR 1612, 1986 SCR (1) 641
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners, including Olga Tellis (a journalist) and pavement dwellers in Bombay (now Mumbai), challenged the decision of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) to forcibly evict slum dwellers from public pavements and other public lands.
These people lived in slums for years, and their livelihood depended on residing at these locations.
The BMC argued that the eviction was necessary to remove encroachments and maintain public order and sanitation.
Legal Questions:
Does the right to livelihood form part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Can the government evict people without providing alternative accommodation?
What are the limits of state power in forcibly removing citizens from their homes when they are homeless and dependent on such spaces for survival?
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) in the context of socio-economic rights.
Balance between public interest and fundamental rights.
Arguments:
Petitioners:
Eviction would deprive them of livelihood and survival, thus violating Article 21.
The government must provide reasonable notice and alternative accommodation.
Respondent (BMC):
Encroachments violated municipal law and public space regulations.
State has the power to remove unauthorized settlements.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, holding that:
Right to Life Includes Right to Livelihood:
Article 21 guarantees the right to live with human dignity, which includes access to livelihood.
Eviction that deprives a person of livelihood would violate Article 21.
Eviction Cannot Be Arbitrary:
The state may evict, but it must follow a procedure established by law.
Eviction should consider humanitarian needs, giving sufficient notice and opportunities to the affected people.
Public Interest vs. Individual Rights:
While public health and order are important, the rights of pavement dwellers cannot be ignored.
State action must balance the interests of the community and the individual.
Key Points/Principles Established:
Article 21 is broad: It protects not only life in the physical sense but also the means necessary for a dignified existence.
Livelihood is part of right to life: For the poor and working class, eviction may destroy their only source of livelihood.
Eviction must be reasonable: State cannot act arbitrarily; humanitarian considerations are essential.
Significance of the Case:
Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include socio-economic rights.
Recognized the right to livelihood as part of the right to life.
Influenced later cases involving slum dwellers, pavement dwellers, and homeless people in India.
Reinforced the principle that state action must be balanced with human dignity.
Conclusion:
Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985) is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law because it clarified that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The Supreme Court emphasized that evictions cannot be arbitrary and must consider the socio-economic impact on vulnerable citizens. Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments