LAND LAW INCLUDING TENURE AND

TENENCY SYSTEM

CASE ANALYSIS – Olga Tellis v. Bombay

Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

Submitted to- Submitted by-

Ms. Avni Singh Solanki Shiv pal Singh
Faculty Enrollment no. A21511120032
LLIT and TS B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
ALS-Aur 6th Semester
Introduction:

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court
of India, delivered on 10th July 1985. The case dealt with the right to livelihood of pavement
dwellers who were facing eviction by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) in the
name of urban beautification.

The case was filed by Olga Tellis, a social worker, and activist, along with several other
petitioners, on behalf of the pavement dwellers who were residing on the streets of Bombay
(now Mumbai). The BMC had issued notices to these dwellers to evict their makeshift homes
in the name of the "beautification" of the city. The petitioners challenged the eviction orders,
arguing that it would violate their fundamental rights to life and livelihood guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Facts of the Case:

1. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India in 1985.

2. The petitioners were a group of pavement dwellers who had been living on the
footpaths and pavements in Mumbai for many years.
3. They had constructed temporary structures and huts made of plastic sheets and other
materials on the pavements.
4. In 1981, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) began a drive to evict pavement
dwellers from the city's footpaths and pavements.
5. The BMC argued that the pavement dwellers were obstructing the free flow of traffic
and causing inconvenience to pedestrians.
6. The BMC claimed that pavement dwellers were illegal occupants of public land and
had no right to stay there.
7. The petitioners challenged the eviction drive on several grounds.
8. They argued that the eviction violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
9. The petitioners also claimed that the BMC had not provided them with any alternative
accommodation, which violated their right to livelihood and dignity.
10. The case was heard by a bench comprising of Justice PN Bhagwati and Justice
Ranganath Misra.
11. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood and the right to shelter were
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
12. The court held that the BMC's action violated the petitioners' fundamental rights and
ordered that they should not be evicted without providing them with alternative
accommodation.
13. The court also directed the BMC to prepare a scheme for providing alternative
accommodation to pavement dwellers.
14. This landmark judgment has been widely cited and has had a significant impact on the
rights of homeless and vulnerable communities in India.

Issues of the case:

1. Whether the eviction of pavement dwellers from the footpaths and pavements in
Mumbai violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution.

The first issue in the case was whether the eviction of pavement dwellers from the
footpaths and pavements in Mumbai violated their fundamental right to life and
liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the
eviction would deprive them of their homes and livelihoods, and would lead to
destitution and starvation. The court held that the right to life and liberty included the
right to a dignified life, which was not possible without shelter and livelihood. The
court also observed that the right to life and liberty could not be restricted by arbitrary
and unreasonable state action, such as the eviction of pavement dwellers without
providing alternative accommodation.

2. Whether the pavement dwellers had a right to alternative accommodation, as the

eviction would result in their loss of livelihood and dignity.

The second issue was whether the pavement dwellers had a right to alternative
accommodation, as the eviction would result in their loss of livelihood and dignity.
The petitioners argued that the BMC had not provided them with any alternative
accommodation, which violated their right to livelihood and dignity. The court held
 that the right to shelter was a fundamental right, which implied that the state had an
obligation to provide shelter to its citizens. The court observed that the pavement
dwellers were living in sub-human conditions, and their eviction without providing
alternative accommodation would be a violation of their right to shelter.

3. Whether the Bombay Municipal Corporation had the power to evict the
pavement dwellers without providing them with alternative accommodation.

The third issue was whether the Bombay Municipal Corporation had the power to
evict the pavement dwellers without providing them with alternative accommodation.
The BMC argued that the pavement dwellers were illegal occupants of public land
and had no right to stay there. The court held that while the state had the power to
evict illegal occupants, it could not do so without providing them with alternative
accommodation. The court also observed that the BMC had not made any effort to
rehabilitate the pavement dwellers, and had only resorted to eviction without
considering their welfare.

4. Whether the right to livelihood and the right to shelter were fundamental rights
under the Indian Constitution.
The fourth issue was whether the right to livelihood and the right to shelter were
fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the right
to livelihood was essential for the right to life and dignity, and the right to shelter was
an integral part of the right to life. The court agreed with the petitioners and held that
the right to livelihood and the right to shelter were fundamental rights, which were
necessary for the full realization of the right to life and dignity.
5. Whether the BMC's action of evicting the pavement dwellers violated their
constitutional rights and human dignity.

The fifth issue was whether the BMC's action of evicting the pavement dwellers
violated their constitutional rights and human dignity. The petitioners argued that the
eviction was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated their constitutional rights and
human dignity. The court held that the eviction of pavement dwellers without
providing alternative accommodation was a violation of their fundamental rights and
human dignity. The court observed that the pavement dwellers were not criminals, and
had resorted to pavement dwelling due to poverty and lack of alternative options.
 6. Whether the court could intervene in the eviction drive and issue orders to
provide alternative accommodation to the pavement dwellers.

The sixth issue was whether the court could intervene in the eviction drive and issue
orders to provide alternative accommodation to the pavement dwellers. The BMC
argued that the court could not interfere in its executive functions, and the matter was
within its exclusive jurisdiction. The court held that the right to life and dignity was a
fundamental right, which could not be compromised by administrative convenience.
The court observed that the BMC had failed to provide any alternative
accommodation to the pavement dwellers, and had violated their constitutional rights.
The court ordered that the pavement dwellers should not be evicted without providing
them with alternative accommodation, and directed the BMC to prepare a scheme for
providing alternative accommodation to

JUDGEMENT

The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, which included
Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud and Justices O. Chinnappa Reddy, D. A. Desai, R. B. Misra,
and R. S. Pathak. The case was argued by a team of lawyers led by senior advocate Soli
Sorabjee on behalf of the pavement dwellers, and by senior advocate Nani Palkhivala on
behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.

The Court relied on the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights enshrined in
the Indian Constitution to arrive at its decision. The Court held that the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to livelihood, and that any deprivation of
livelihood without due process of law would be a violation of this fundamental right. The
Court also held that the Municipal Corporation's actions violated the principle of non-
discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, as they targeted a particular group of
people for eviction without providing them with alternative accommodation.

In its judgment, the Court ordered the Municipal Corporation to provide alternative
accommodation to the pavement dwellers and directed the government to take steps to
improve the living conditions of the urban poor. The Court also ordered the government to
provide basic amenities such as water, sanitation, and health services to the pavement
dwellers.
The Olga Tellis case has had a far-reaching impact on the protection of the rights of
vulnerable and marginalized communities in India. It has been cited in numerous subsequent
judgments and has influenced government policies on housing and urban development. The
case is often cited as an example of the Indian judiciary's commitment to social justice and
human rights.

Case Analysis/Conclusion

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation case is a landmark judgment in Indian
constitutional law as it recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case highlights the judiciary's role in
protecting the rights of marginalized and vulnerable communities, particularly in the context
of urban poverty and homelessness.

The case arose from the eviction of pavement dwellers in Mumbai by the Bombay Municipal
Corporation. The Supreme Court of India held that the eviction of the pavement dwellers
without providing them with alternative accommodation would be a violation of their
fundamental right to life and livelihood. The Court also directed the government to provide
basic amenities such as water, sanitation, and health services to the pavement dwellers.

The judgment in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation reflects the Indian judiciary's
commitment to social justice and human rights. The Court's decision to recognize the right to
livelihood as an integral part of the right to life has had far-reaching implications for the
protection of the rights of vulnerable and marginalized communities in India. The case has
been cited in numerous subsequent judgments and has influenced government policies on
housing and urban development.

The case is also significant for its recognition of the principle of non-discrimination under
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that the Municipal Corporation's actions
violated this principle as they targeted a particular group of people for eviction without
providing them with alternative accommodation. This recognition of the principle of non-
discrimination has helped to reinforce the constitutional protections against discrimination
based on caste, religion, gender, and other grounds.

Overall, the Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation case is a testament to the Indian
judiciary's commitment to protecting the rights of vulnerable and marginalized communities
and upholding the principles of social justice and human rights. The case has had a significant
impact on the development of Indian constitutional law and has helped to strengthen the
constitutional protections for the rights of all citizens.