Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Rule established
Right to livelihood is part of Art.21; pavement dwellers cannot be evicted without notice and hearing; Rule of Law extends to the most vulnerable.
Facts
- Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict all pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay
- Government announced mass eviction drive without individual notice to affected persons
- Thousands of families (pavement dwellers) had no alternative accommodation
- Their livelihood (daily wage work) depended on proximity to work sites in the city
- PIL filed by journalist Olga Tellis challenging mass eviction
Issues
- Whether right to livelihood is part of "right to life" under Art.21?
- Whether pavement dwellers (encroachers on public land) are entitled to hearing before eviction?
Held
- Right to livelihood is an integral facet of right to life under Art.21
- Deprivation of livelihood without fair procedure violates Art.21
- Even encroachers on public land cannot be removed without: (a) reasonable notice, (b) opportunity to show cause, (c) alternative arrangement or rehabilitation
- Rule of Law extends to the most vulnerable; no person so insignificant that procedure can be dispensed with
- However, the right is not absolute; after fair procedure, eviction for genuine public purpose is permissible
Ratio Decidendi
The concept of life under Art.21 is not mere animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity. Since livelihood enables life, any State action that deprives a person of livelihood must satisfy fair procedure. The Rule of Law in its modern form demands that even the weakest and most marginalized citizen is entitled to procedural protection before the State acts against their interests.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Art.21 expansion to include right to livelihood.
- Part B: Modern Rule of Law: procedural protection extends to the most vulnerable; eviction without hearing violates Art.21.
- Key line: "The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far reaching. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood."
Source
Source: AIR 1986 SC 180; Massey, Administrative Law; Sathe, Administrative Law
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.