Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
The right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21; eviction depriving livelihood must follow fair procedure, though no right to resettlement was recognised.
Facts
Pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay challenged their forcible eviction under section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, which permitted removal of encroachments without notice. They argued that eviction would deprive them of their livelihood, since they lived near their places of work, and thus violate their right to life.
Issues
- Does the right to life under Article 21 include the right to livelihood?
- Can pavement dwellers be evicted without a hearing, and are they entitled to alternative accommodation before eviction?
Arguments
The petitioners argued that depriving them of their pavement dwellings destroyed their livelihood and therefore their right to life, and that eviction without notice was unfair. The Corporation argued the encroachments were illegal, caused traffic and hygiene hazards, and that section 314 authorised removal without notice.
Held
The Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life, because no person can live without the means of living. Reading section 314 as merely enabling (not mandating) removal without notice, it held that the audi alteram partem rule applied and evictees were entitled to a hearing. However, the Court declined to recognise a right to alternative accommodation or resettlement before eviction, deferring to the executive and fearing it would encourage further encroachment on public property.
Ratio decidendi
The right to life in Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, and deprivation of livelihood by State action must conform to a just and fair procedure including the right to be heard.
Significance
A landmark socio-economic expansion of Article 21, establishing livelihood as a constitutionally protected dimension of life. Frequently cited as the high-water mark of dignity rhetoric, yet criticised (including in the book) for its conservative refusal to require resettlement, exposing the gap between the Court's dignity discourse and meaningful remedies.
Related
Test yourself on Constitution of India. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
Take a subject test →Source: /Users/tiwari/Documents/All Law Books/raw/Oxform Constitution Commentary/CHAPTER-42-Life-and-Personal-Liberty.md/Users/tiwari/Documents/All Law Books/raw/Oxform Constitution Commentary/CHAPTER-43-Due-Process.md