BACKGROUND
The case began when the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) decided to evict pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay, claiming their presence violated city planning and sanitation laws. The petitioners, led by journalist Olga Tellis, argued that these evictions violated their right to livelihood, claiming that losing access to work would be equivalent to endangering their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
LEGAL ISSUES
The primary legal questions were:
- Does the right to life include the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Does the state have the authority to evict without providing alternative accommodation?
ARGUMENTS
The petitioners contended that slum and pavement dwellers are forced to live near their workplaces due to economic constraints and lack of affordable housing. They argued that eviction without providing alternative shelter would push them into more dire poverty, violating their fundamental right to life and livelihood under Article 21. However, the State argued that these structures were illegal and posed a public health hazard.
JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 does encompass the right to livelihood, reasoning that livelihood is essential for survival. Although the Court acknowledged the BMC’s authority to clear encroachments, it mandated that any eviction must follow fair procedures. It required the state to provide alternative accommodations or notice periods for the dwellers. It was further held that:
- Right to livelihood as a part of right to life: Eviction without resettlement would disrupt livelihood and endanger lives, especially for the economically vulnerable.
- Reasonable procedures: The state must adopt humane processes, offering notice and, where possible, resettlement options.
SIGNIFICANCE
This case was instrumental in broadening the interpretation of Article 21, introducing social justice considerations within the right to life. It underscored the state’s duty to balance legal enforcement with compassion for marginalized communities. The verdict established a precedent for procedural fairness and highlighted the importance of protecting the livelihood of those living in poverty.
