CENTRAL UNIVERSITY

OF SOUTH BIHAR

PROJECT WORK OF CONSTITUTION

NAME = VAIBHAV SANCHAR
ENROLLMENT NO.= CUSB1713125053
PROGRAMME= BA.LLB
SEMESTER = SECOND
PROJECT TOPIC=OLGA TELLIS VS BOMBAY MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION AIR 1986 SC 180

Page 1 of 14
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Ms. Poonam kumari, who
have gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project which is based on a case
“Olga Tellis and Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation”. I came to know about so many new
things while making this project. I am really thankful to her.

I have taken lots of efforts by completing

this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support and help of
many individuals and organizations like library and computer lab . I would like to extend my
sincere thanks to all of them.

Secondly I would like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.

I am highly indebted to Central University of South Bihar for their guidance and constant
supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project and also for
their support in completing the project.

Vaibhav Sanchar

Page 2 of 14
 CONTENT

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………….. 05

NATURE OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………………………. 06

FACTUAL SCENARIO…………………………………………………………………………………. 07

DISPUTE…...................................................................................................... 08-09

ISSUES……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 09

DECISION OF THE JUDGEMENT……………………………………………………………….. 12

CONCLUSION…............................................................................................... 13

Page 3 of 14
TITLE
Olga Tellis & Others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others

CITATION

 AIR 1986 SC 18
 (1985) 3 SCC 545

PARTIES

 Petitioner
 Ms. Olga Tellis (A Lady Journalist & Social Activist)
 Vayyapuri Kuppusami
 Respondent
 Bombay Municipal Corporation
 State of Maharashtra

BENCH

 Y. V. Chandrachud, C. J.,
 A. Vardarajan,
 O. Chinnappa Reddy,
 S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and
 V.D. Tulzapukar,

LAW INVOLVED

 Constitution of India,1950:Articles 14,15,16,19,19(1),21,22,25,29,32,37,39,and

Article 41
 Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 441
 Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Sections 312,313,314

Page 4 of 14
 INTRODUCTION

Before we go on to look at the factual scenario of the case let us first study the articles of the
Constitution of India that were in issue here in this case Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation.

Here the articles which were in issue are article 21 Right To Life and article 19 Right to Freedom

The case Olga Tellis and Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation of India is a landmark case in
which the Supreme Court of India interpreted that Right to Livelihood comes under the ambit
of Right to Life Article 21.

Therefore let us first understand what Right to life is- Article 21 assures every person right to
life and personal liberty. The term life has been given a very expansive meaning. The term
‘personal liberty’ covers a variety of rights which go on to constitute personal liberty of a
citizen. Its deprivation shall only be as per the relevant procedure prescribed in the relevant
law, but the procedure has to be just and fair.

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AS A PART OF RIGHT TO LIFE

The Supreme Court of India took the view that right to life in Article 21 would not include right
to livelihood. In re Sant Ram Supreme Court ruled that right to life would not include right to
livelihood. The right to livelihood can only be included in Article 19 and Article 16 of the
Constitution of India and that too in a very limited sense. The Supreme Court reiterated this
proposition in several cases also. But then, the view of the court underwent a change. With the
defining of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 in a broad and expansive manner, the Court came to hold
that the right to life includes right to livelihood. This decision was made by the court in Olga
Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation.1

1
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1161 (2014)

Page 5 of 14
NATURE OF THE CASE
In this case a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. Olga Tellis, a lady
journalist along with People’s Union For Civil Liberties and other organization challenged the
order of eviction passed by Mr. A.R. Antulay, then the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Pavement
dwellers and Public Interest Organization claimed that order of eviction of pavement dwellers is
violative of Fundamental Right. Evection deprives them, inter alia, of their Fundamental Right
enshrined in Article 19 and Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21.2

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case are as such that the plights of people live on pavements and slums in the
city of Bombay. They have made such areas their homes which exist in the midst of dirt and
squalor. These are the people who made both of the ends of the day meet in ambiguity; there
is little hope of elevation of status between them. They came before the honorable Supreme
Court to get back their homes from which they have been evicted by the municipal authority
for the city. Such snatching up of their homes is a violation of their Article 21. The contention
from their side that they have made these places their homes, as they are near the place where
they work, which in turn provide them great assistance. So, this also infringes Article 19(1)(e) as
they will be in great difficulty to reach their work place. To live a life or to exercise the right to
live they should also have right to live they should also have right to livelihood and without this
such exercise is not possible.

Thus, the act which is the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act under which such evictions
have been carried out is of arbitrary in nature and fanciful.3

2
www.scribd.com

3
www.lawctopus.com

Page 6 of 14
 FACTUAL SCENARIO

The empirical data compiled by the agencies, official and non official revealed that the
pavement and a slum dweller choose a pavement or a slum in the vicinity of their place of work
and for them, to lose of pavement or slum is to lose the job. They manage to find the habitat in
places which are mostly filthy or marshy out of sheer helpless.

The disputes arose when on July 13, 1981 the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Shri A.R. Antulay,
made an announcement which was given wide publicity by the newspapers that all the
pavement dwellers in the city of Bombay will be evicted forcibly and deported to their
respective places of origin or removed to places outside the city of Bombay. The Chief Minister
directed Bombay Municipal Corporation to demolish the pavement dwelling and deport the
pavement dwellers. The apparent justification which the Chief Minister gave to his
announcement was it is a very inhuman existence. These structures are flimsy and open to the
elements. During the monsoon there is no way these people can live comfortably.

Section 312(1) 313(1)(a) and 314 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act of 1888 empower the
Municipal Commissioner to cause to be removed encroachments on footpaths or pavements
over which the public have a right of passage or access. But the procedure prescribed by
Sec.314 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act confers on the commissioner the discretion to
cause an encroachment to be removed with or without notice. The discretion has to be
exercised in a reasonable manner so as to comply with the constitutional mandate that the
procedure accompanying the performance of a public act must be fair and reasonable.
Pursuant to that decision, pavement dwellings of some of the people were in fact demolished. 4

4
AIR 1986 SC 180, 181,para 43

Page 7 of 14
 DISPUTE

The decision of the respondents i.e. the State Government of Maharashtra and the Bombay
Municipal Corporation to demolish the huts was challenged by the petitioners on the ground
that it was violative of article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also asked
for the declaration that the Bombay Municipal Act, 1888 are invalid as violating articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs asked for in the two groups of writ petitions
were that the respondents should be directed to withdraw the decision to demolish the
pavement dwellings and the slum hutments and, where they were already demolished, to
restore possession of the sites to the former occupants.

In response to the petition filed the Government of Maharashtra and Bombay Municipal
Corporation filed a counter affidavit which basically said that the Government of Maharashtra
and Bombay Municipal Corporation neither proposed to deport any pavement dweller out of
the city of Bombay nor did in fact deport anyone. The counter affidavit further said that no
person has a legal right to encroach upon or to construct any structure on a foot-path or public
street or on any place over which the public has a right to way.

The petition which was filed in reply to the counter affidavit stated that even if squatters are
evicted, they come back to the city because there job opportunities are available. The
Government had not put to the best use the finances and resources available to it. The
employment schemes of the State Government were like drop in the ocean and no steps were
taken for increasing the job in the rural sector. The neglect of health, education and transport
and communication drive the rural folk to the cities not only in the search of job but also in
search of basic amenities of life. It further said that the Court must determine in these petitions
the content of Right to Life, right to reside and settle in part of the territory of India which is
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g), the competing claims of pavement dwellers on the one hand
and of the pedestrians on the other. One of the grievances of the petitioners against Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was that it was it was a century old piece of legislature passed
in an era when pavement dwellers and slum dwellers did not exist and the consciousness of the
modern notion of the welfare state was not present in the mind of the colonial legislatures.

It was further said by the petitioners that the State is under the obligation to provide to the
citizens the necessities of life and in appropriate cases the Court has the power to direct the
State to promote and protect the right to life.

The contention of Bombay Municipal Corporation was that since the pavement dwellers had
conceded in the High Court of Bombay that they did not claim any fundamental rights to put up

Page 8 of 14
the huts on the pavements or public roads and since they had given an undertaking to the High
Court that they will not obstruct the demolition of the huts they are estopped from contending
in the Supreme Court that the huts constructed by them on the pavements cannot be
demolished because of their right to livelihood

ISSUES THAT WERE TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT

(1) Was the order of eviction of pavement the infringement of their right to livelihood and
in turn the encroachment over their right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
(2) That whether the impugned action of the State Government and the Bombay Municipal
Corporation violative of the provisions contained in the 19(1) (3), 19(1) (g) and Article 21
of the Constitution?
(3) Whether the procedure prescribed by Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation
Act, 1888 for the removal of the encroachments from the pavements arbitrary and
unreasonable?5

5
olga tellis and ors. vs. Bombay municipal corporation and ors. case comment
http://www.legallyindia.com/principles%20of%20jeremy%20benthamand
%20supreme%20court%20of%20india,%20ofolga%20tellis%20and%20ors.%20v.%20bombay%20municipal%20,%2
0sandeep%20pathak.html

Page 9 of 14
 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

(1)The Supreme Court said that just because the petitioners conceded in the High Court of
Bombay that they did not claim any fundamental rights to put up the pavements on public
roads they are not stopped from contending that the huts constructed by them on the
pavements cannot be demolished. The Court further said that it is not possible to accept this
contention. It said that the Constitution of India is the supreme authority in the country. There
can be no estoppels against the Constitution. It is the paramount law of the land. The lines said
by honorable Chief Justice were:

“There can be no estoppels against the Constitution. The Constitutional is not only the
paramount law of the land but it is the source and sustenance of all laws. Its provisions are
conceived in public interest and are intended to serve a public purpose. The doctrine of
estoppel is based on the principle that consistency in word and action imparts certainty and
honesty to human affairs. There can also be no waiver of fundamental rights. No individual can
barter away the freedoms conferred upon him by the individual.”6

The Court further said:

“Fundamental rights are undoubtedly conferred by the Constitution upon individuals
which have to be asserted and enforced by them, if those rights are violated. But the
high purposes for which the Constitution seeks to achieve by conferment of
fundamental rights is not only to benefit individuals but to secure the larger interests of
the community.”7
The court said that if a person says that he does not want his fundamental right to be
enforced, whether under the mistake of law or otherwise, cannot create a estoppel
against him in that or subsequent proceedings. Such a concession if imposed would
defeat the purpose of the Constitution.
Therefore the court decided that even if the petitioners said that they did not want to
enforce their fundamental right to construct hutments on pavements still they are

6
AIR 1986 SC 180, Para 1
7
AIR 1986 SC 180, 192, Para 28

Page 10 of 14
 entitled to assert that any such action on the part of the public authorities will be in
violation of the fundamental rights.

(2)The Court said that the petitioner’s case which said that right to livelihood should
be included in right to life because if they are evicted from their slum and pavement
dwellings they will be deprived of their means of livelihood which would tantamount
to their deprivation of right to life and hence it would be unconstitutional stands
true and Article 21 does include right to livelihood.

“The sweep of right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does
not mean that merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away, as for example, by
the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to the procedure
established by law. This is but one aspect of right to life. An equally important facet of
that right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without a means of
livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to
life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of
his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.”8

(3)The Supreme Court further observed procedure prescribed by the law for
depriving the person of his fundamental right, must conform to the norm of just and
fair play. The action must be within the scope of the authority conferred by law and
it must be reasonable. The Court said the case of Olga Tellis they were of the opinion
that the procedure prescribed by the Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act,1888 the removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements
over which the public has the right to passage or access cannot be regarded as
unreasonable, unfair, unjust. The Court further said that footpaths and pavements
are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general
public. Therefore the court held that no person has the right to encroach any place
reserved or embarked for the public purpose and that the provision contained in
Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is not unreasonable.

(4) Taking into consideration the special nature of the case, the court went on to
undertake the role of the commissioner. It ordered that the dwellers would be
evicted only one month after the end of the rainy season (date specified). The state
was also directed to give alternate accommodation to certain dwellers. This was not

8
AIR 1986 SC 180, 193, Para 32

Page 11 of 14
 a condition precedent for eviction and was merely to give effect to certain earlier
assurances by the government.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT

The judgment delivered by hon’ble Supreme Court in this case is very much appreciable. The
decision of the Supreme Court in this case was based on the humanistic approach of the judges
and the apex court stepped into the activist role. The honorable Supreme Court held that the
slum dwellers must get an alternative shelter if they are evicted from the pavements although
the eviction orders were held to be valid under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In fact, the
right to life was again enlarged to engulf the right to livelihood as being a part of liberty of an
individual. The decision of the court also focused on the concept of the welfare state and
reliance though not expressly but impliedly was placed on the Directive Principles of the State
Policies under the constitution.

It is to be noted that the slum dwellers and pavement dwellers constituted almost half of the
population of the city of Bombay. It would not be unwise to say that the huge population of the
petitioners (slum dwellers and pavement dwellers) had compelled the court to pen down in
their favor despite of the existence of specific law for the eviction of such pavement dwellers
and slum dwellers (Bombay municipal corporation act, 1988 deals with the prohibition on
housing and depositions of various items on the pavements by the dwellers. According to chief
justice Y.V. Chandrachud, although the petitioners were using pavements and public properties
unauthorizedly, they in no were ‘criminal trespassers”. They just managed to find habitat in
filthy or marshy places.

In short we may say that this decision has paved the way for reformation of substantive law.

Page 12 of 14
 CONCLUSION

In this case the Supreme Court of India gave a landmark verdict which said that right to
livelihood is a part of right to life and emphasizing upon the close relationship between life and
livelihood the Court stated that which makes it alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what
makes life livable must be deemed to be an integral component of right to life.9

9
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1161(2014)

Page 13 of 14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

M.P.JAIN- INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

V.N. SHUKLA’S – CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WEBSITES:

WWW.WIKIIPEDIA.COM

WWW.LAWCTOPUS.COM

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM

Page 14 of 14