NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDYAND

RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

          
          PHILOSOPHY PROJECT WORK 
     Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 

SUBMITTED TO:                        SUBMITTED BY:

DR. ARABINDA SAHOO                   NAME: ADITI OHDAR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR                  SEMESTER: I 
                                                                SECTION: A 
                                                               ROLL NO:1213

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DECLARATION…………………………………………………3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………….4

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………......5

BACKGROUND…………………………………………………5

THE ISSUE INVOLVED………………………………………...7

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS………………………………7

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS…….………………………8

THE RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION….……………………8

JUDGEMENT…………………………………………………….9

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………10

REFERENCE……………………………………………………...11

2
   DECLARATION 

I, Aditi Ohdar, a first semester BALLB student of National University of Study and Research
in Law, Ranchi, hereby declare that the project titled “Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation” under the guidance of Dr. Arabinda Sahoo Sir, faculty of Philosophy, is an
original work, free from any kind of plagiarism, the diagrams and pictures used are either
self-created by me or appropriate credits are given. I have made sincere efforts to complete
this project and have not done any misrepresentation of fact or data. 
  
I declare that the statements made and the conclusions drawn are the bona fide outcome of
the research work. I further assert that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, proper
references have been given and does not contain any work that has been submitted in any
other university. 

3
   ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

I, Aditi Ohdar, would like to thank all of those who helped me during the whole procedure of
making this project and helped me in completing it successfully. 

Firstly, I would like to thank my teacher and mentor Dr. Arabinda Sahoo Sir who showed
faith in me by providing such a wonderful topic. His constant guidance has played a vital role
in completion of this project successfully. His keen attention helped me to deal with each
problem that I faced during the making of this project. My heartfelt gratitude to all the staff
members and administrators of NUSRL for providing me with a wonderful library. Their
support cannot be expressed in words.  

Finally, I would like to thank God for his benevolence and grace in enabling me to finish this
task. I express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents, siblings, and friends who helped me to
complete this project without much problems.  

Thanking you, 
ADITI OHDAR
SEMESTER: I 
SECTION: A 
ROLL NO:1213

4
 INTRODUCTION

The case “Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation” is a writ petition filled by a
women reporter Olga Tellis in addition to PUCL (People's Union for Civil Liberties) and
other organizations under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The case was filled in the
year 1985 in the Supreme Court of India. This petition disputes the eviction of pavement and
slum dwellers. They exist pursuing to be admit to persist the pavements against their order of
throwing out of a residence all the while the monsoon months by the Bombay Municipal
Corporation. The petitioners argue that the order of the lawmen under section 314 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 is conflicting Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. 

BACKGROUND

The Bombay Municipal Corporation in Maharashtra planned to evict pavement and slum
dwellers in the city of Bombay in 1981. Their eviction and repatriation to their homeland
were ordered by the Chief Minister. An injunction restricting the officers of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation was filed in the Bombay High Court by those who were aggrieved by
this writ petition. The High Court of Bombay issued an ad interim injunction that was to last
until July 21, 1981, and Respondents promised not to demolish the huts until October 15,
1981, but petitioners were deported out of Bombay on July 23, 1981, in violation of the
agreement. The respondents objected to the order, claiming that it contravenes Articles 19
and 21 of the Constitution, as well as Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act.

Before we begin our study of the issue, we need first review all of the laws that are relevant
to the situation:

 Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 21, 32, 39, and 41 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
 Section 441 of Indian Penal Code,1860.
 Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

Let's take a quick look at the most significant ones:

5
Article 14:

Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.1

Article 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(g):

Article 19 provides protection of certain rights such as freedom of speech, etc.

 Article 19(1)(e) provides rights to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
 Article 19(1)(g) provides rights to practise any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.

Article 21:

Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Article 32:

Fundamental Rights - Estoppel – Principle behind - No estoppel can be claimed against

enforcement of Fundamental Rights.2

Section 441 of IPC:

Criminal trespass is defined as anyone who unlawfully enters or remains on another's

property with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in
possession of such property, or who, having lawfully entered or upon such property,
unlawfully remains there with the intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, or
with the intent to commit an offence.

Sections 312, 313 and 314 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act ,1888:

 312 (a) – No person should be allowed to erect or set up any wall, fence, rail, post,
step, booth, or other structure or fixture in or upon any street, or upon or over any
open channel, drain, well, or tank in any street, without the permission of the
commissioner, and form an obstruction, encroachment, or projection there.

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/

6
  The restriction of placing or depositing certain goods in the street without permission
is discussed in Section 313(1) of this article.
 The requirement of a licence for selling in public places is discussed in Section 313A.
 Section 314 gives the commissioner the authority to remove anything that is erected,
deposited, or hawked in violation of sections 312 or 313A without prior notice

THE ISSUES INVOLVED

 Article 21 of the Constitution defines the right to life and a livelihood.

 Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act are
constitutional.
 Question of Fundamental Rights Waiver or Estoppels Against Fundamental Rights
 Whether pavement dwellers are ‘trespasser’ under IPC.3

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS

Petitioners argued that under Article 21, the right to life includes the right to livelihood, and
that this eviction breaches this right since evicting people from slums and pavements deprives
them of their essential livelihood, making it illegal. It was also contended that Section 314 of
the BMCA is arbitrary and irrational since it contains a provision that allows the municipal
commissioner unlimited right to evict people without any prior warning.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS

3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/

7
Respondents claimed that pavement dwellers had already agreed in High Court not to assert
any Fundamental Rights in order to build huts on the sidewalks, and that they had also agreed
not to obstruct the destruction of the huts after the required period. On the issue of natural
justice, the petitioner argued: "Is it practicable or justifiable enough to grant this opportunity
of hearing to trespassers who have encroached on public properties?" Do those who commit
crimes deserve to be punished?

THE RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

While justifying the petitioners' arguments, the Supreme Court noted that:

 The right to life has a considerably broader scope; it doesn't only mean that life can't
be threatened unless there's a legal system in place, as this definition implies; rather, it
means that life can't be threatened unless there's a legal procedure in place. The court
acknowledged that livelihood is a foundation of the right to life because no one can
exist without it. The simplest method to undermine the spirit of Article 21 is to
exclude livelihood from the list of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court went on to
say that deprivation of this right should only be done in conformity with the law
because it can lead to a person's right to life being taken away, and not include it in
the right to life is also in violation of Articles 39(a) and 41 of the constitution.
 While the Supreme Court placed a greater emphasis on the inclusion of livelihood in
Article 21, it also made it plain that such regulations can be revoked through a legal
process. Thus, sections 312(1), 313(1)(a), and 314, which authorise the commissioner
to remove encroachments from public spaces and walkways, cannot be considered
unjust and unreasonable because they do not violate the concept of natural justice, but
rather serve as an exception (as the procedure established by law in certain
circumstances). As a result, it's not arbitrary.

In support of the respondents' arguments, the court stated:

 There can never be an estoppel or waiver in favour of the Constitution or

Fundamental Rights. Individuals are not allowed to trade away their constitutional
rights. Any such concession made in any hearing, whether by mistake of law or
otherwise, cannot be used against him in subsequent actions. As a result, such a
8
 concession undermines and negates the fundamental objective of the Constitution's
provisions.4
 On the question of petitioners being labelled criminals and thus not entitled to a
hearing, the court stated that understanding the basic elements of trespassing is
required before labelling them trespassers under Section 441 of the IPC. "Commit an
offence or frighten, offend, or annoy any person" is one of the elements. In this case,
however, none of these criteria are met. These encroachments are only the tip of the
iceberg.

JUDGEMENT

The five-judge bench, which included then-Chairman of the Supreme Court of India, Y.V.
Chandrachud, and justices A.V. Varadarajan, O. Chinnappa Reddy, Syed Murtaza Fazl Ali,
and V.D. Tulzapurkar, issued the unanimous verdict. The following are some key points:

 “For the purposes of argument, we will assume the factual correctness of the premises
that if the petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be deprived of their
livelihood. Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether
the right to life includes the right to livelihood, we see only one answer to that
question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art. 21 is
wide and far-reaching... That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what
makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life.”5
 People do not have the right to trespass on public sidewalks, pavements, or any other
area designated for public use.
 Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation is not unreasonable in the current
circumstances.
 Residents who were censored in 1976 should be given access to websites.
 Slums that had been in place for 20 years or longer could not be eliminated unless
land was required for public reasons, in which case alternative sites had to be
supplied.

4
https://lawcirca.com/olga-tellis-v-s-bombay-municipal-corporation1985-scc-3-545-case-analysis/
5
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/

9
  Resettlement should be given top priority.6

CONCLUSION

The residents were evicted as a result of the ruling, with no alternate location provided. Since
1985, the decision has been upheld in a number of following cases. Even after eviction was
declared valid under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, the court's decision aided in
expanding the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. While the court did not meet the
appellants' demands in this case, it did recognise that everyone has the right to be heard,
which was violated in this case. The case is described as an example of how civil and
political rights are utilised to advance social rights, and it has expanded the scope of a very
important constitutional right, but the problem is that it lacks the right to settlement, which
has resulted in an injustice somewhere. The decision also draws attention to "Jeremy
Bentham's" utilitarian principle. According to the idea, any action should aim to bring "the
greatest happiness to the largest number of people." Though the court acknowledged the
current law in this decision, it attempted to protect this concept by stating that residents have
the right to be heard and that prior notice is required. They were also not considered criminal
trespassers. The judgement broadened the definition of the right to life. All of this implies
that the court is willing to uphold this concept in the interest of the greater good.

REFERENCES

6
https://lawcirca.com/olga-tellis-v-s-bombay-municipal-corporation1985-scc-3-545-case-analysis/

10
1. https://scroll.in/article/776655/thirty-years-after-a-landmark-supreme-court-verdict-
slum-dwellers-rights-are-still-ignored
2. https://lawcirca.com/olga-tellis-v-s-bombay-municipal-corporation1985-scc-3-545-
case-analysis/
3. https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/libweb/acts/1888.03.pdf
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1975922/

11