Supreme Court Upholds Right to Livelihood as Part of Right to Life, Sets Conditions on Eviction of Bombay Pavement and Slum Dwellers

In landmark judgment, Supreme Court rules that eviction of pavement and slum dwellers without fair procedure violates Article 21; mandates alternative accommodations and postpones eviction till post-monsoon 1985

In a significant judgment delivered on July 10, 1985, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, addressed the contentious issue of eviction of pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay (now Mumbai). The case, initiated by petitioners including journalists and pavement dwellers, challenged the forced eviction directives issued by the Maharashtra Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC), highlighting the fundamental right to livelihood as an essential facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitions arose from the plight of thousands of impoverished individuals living in squalid conditions on pavements and slums, who relied on proximity to their workplaces in the city for survival. The Maharashtra Government, through its agencies, had moved to demolish these unauthorized encroachments on public footpaths and roads, justifying the action on grounds of public health, safety, and urban order.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the harsh realities faced by these petitioners, including the filthy living conditions, lack of basic amenities, and the economic compulsion driving migration from rural areas. The Court emphasized the inseparable link between the right to life and the right to livelihood, holding that depriving a person of their means of livelihood effectively deprives them of their right to life. This interpretation expanded the protective ambit of Article 21 beyond mere physical survival.

However, the Court also upheld the authority of the BMC under Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, to remove encroachments obstructing public streets and pavements. Importantly, the Court construed Section 314, which permits removal without prior notice, as an enabling provision granting discretion rather than a mandatory power to act without notice. It clarified that natural justice principles apply, and the Municipal Commissioner must exercise discretion reasonably, ensuring fair and just procedure.

The Court rejected the argument that petitioners were estopped from asserting fundamental rights due to prior undertakings in lower courts, affirming that fundamental rights cannot be waived or estopped. It also dismissed the characterization of pavement dwellers as criminals or trespassers in the punitive sense, recognizing their encroachments as involuntary acts driven by necessity.

Addressing the relief sought, the Supreme Court directed that pavement dwellers who were enumerated in the 1976 census be offered alternative developed sites, particularly at Malvani, or other convenient locations not too distant, though this was not to be a precondition for eviction. Similarly, slum dwellers with identity cards were to be provided alternate accommodation before eviction. The Court also ordered that no evictions or demolitions be carried out until one month after the conclusion of the 1985 monsoon season, i.e., until October 31, 1985, to minimize hardship.

Further, the Court urged the State Government to earnestly pursue various housing schemes, including the Low Income Scheme Shelter Programme and Slum Upgradation Programme, stressing the need for positive governmental action to address housing shortages and urban poverty.

This ruling is hailed as a pioneering interpretation of the right to life, affirming socio-economic rights as intrinsic to fundamental freedoms. It balances the rights of the urban poor with public interest, insisting on procedural fairness and humane considerations in enforcement actions.

Statutory provisions:- Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 3(w), 61, 63(k), 312(1), 313(1)(a), 314; Bombay Police Act - Sections 111, 115, 117; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 19(1)(g), 21, 32, 37, 39(a), 41, 226

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 52851