OLGA TELLIS AND ORS. . V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: 1985 3 SCC 545

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, O. Chinappa
Reddy and A. Vardarajan, JJ.

Decided on: 10 July, 1985

BRIEF FACTS

● The state of Maharashtra in 1981 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to
evict the pavement dwellers and those who were residing in slums in Bombay under
Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888. Pursuant to that, the
then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Mr A. R. Antulay ordered on July 13 to evict
slum dwellers and pavement dwellers out of Bombay and to deport them to their place
of origin.
● On hearing about the Chief Minister’s announcement the petitioners filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Bombay for an order of injunction restraining the
officers of the State Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporations from
implementing the directive of the Chief Minister.
● The High Court of Bombay granted an ad interim injunction to be in force until July
21, 1981. The respondents, accepting the demands of the petitioner, agreed that the
huts will not be demolished until October 15, 1981. However, contrary to the
agreement, on July 23, 1981, the petitioners were huddled into State Transport buses
for being deported out of Bombay.
● The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is
violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. They also asked for a declaration
that Section 312, 313 and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 is
violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

ISSUES

Though the court did not mention specifically any issue, yet it discussed intensively on the
following issues:-

● Whether the Respondents can claim estoppel against waiver of fundamental rights?
● Whether the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to
livelihood?
● Whether the provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 are
constitutional and whether they would constitute “procedure established by law”?

Arguments
Petitioners

● The main contention of the petitioners was that the forced eviction of the petitioners
from their pavement dwellings was resulting in their loss of livelihood, which is a
fundamental right under Article 21 as it is the means to ensuring “life” as defined
under Article 21. Therefore, they should be allowed to remain in these slum areas.
● The petitioners also contended that the provisions of Sections 312, 313 and 314 of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 were invalid as they were violating
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Since, these sections allowed the
Commissioner to get the dwellings removed without issuing notice, therefore, the
procedure was arbitrary and could not be inferred to mean “procedure established by
law” which should be just and fair.

Respondents

● The respondents stated that the pavement residents had admitted to the High Court
that they did not claim any basic right to install cabins on sidewalks or public roads
and that they would not prevent their demolition after the scheduled date.
● Moreover, they also contended that no person has any legal right to encroach upon or
to construct any structure on a footpath, public street or on any place over which the
public has a right of way. Moreover, numerous hazards of health and safety arise if
action is not taken to remove such encroachments. It is the duty of the Corporation to
prevent such instances, and therefore, the removal of pavement dwellings is justified,
particularly in light of the fact that the residents would be located elsewhere.
● It was also stated that the provisions of sections 312, 313 and 314 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act violate the Constitution. The respondents stated that those
provisions were conceived in public interest and great care was taken by the
authorities to ensure that no harassment is caused to any pavement dweller while
enforcing the provisions of those sections.

OBSERVATIONS

● Regarding the plea of estoppel, the court held that there can be no estoppel against the
Constitution. The freedoms provided by the Fundamental Rights are in the nature of
public rights and are provided by the Constitution. No person has the right to barter
them away. Therefore, this plea was rejected.
● The court also noted that the right to life includes all those things which a person
requires to live. If a person is deprived of his right to livelihood, then obviously, it
would lead to a violation of the right to life.
 ● In the words of Justice Chandrachud, “ If the right to livelihood is not treated as a
part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right
to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and
meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation
would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right
to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. ” Therefore, the right to
livelihood was held to be a fundamental right under Article 21.
● The court also held the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888
were not arbitrary and therefore could be inferred to be a part of “procedure
established by law”. Regarding the issue of eviction without notice, the court held that
it is a discretionary power given to the Commissioner which is to be exercised
carefully in the most extreme situations. Generally the principles of natural justice
have to be upheld by following the principle of “Audi Alteram Partem”

Held

● Though the court accepted that the petitioners could not continue their encroachment
of the public streets and pavements, yet it also recognized their plight and noticed that
they were doing it out of “forced necessity”.
● It directed that slum dwellers who were living there for 20 or more years should not
be evicted unless the land is required for public purposes and, if this happens,
alternate sites must be provided.
● It also directed that the Respondents should give high priority to resettlement of the
pavement dwellers and ensure they are able to get basic civil amenities as well as
livelihood at affordable rates.