In the groundbreaking case of Olga Tellis Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation in 1985, the Supreme Court redefined the rights of pavement dwellers in India. The case began in 1981 when the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation proposed to evict pavement and slum dwellers, sending them back to “their respective places of origin or places outside the city of Bombay”. This led to significant questions about the right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which declares: “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Crucial Questions Discussed
The case raised pivotal questions. One of the main issues was whether evicting a pavement dweller would amount to depriving him/her of their livelihood, essentially violating Article 21. Another key question was whether it was constitutionally permissible to categorize pavement dwellers as trespassers. Moreover, the removal of encroachments without prior notice, permitted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, was challenged as arbitrary and unreasonable.
The Significant Judgment: Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, established that eviction without the opportunity for defense is unconstitutional. Treating pavement dwellers as mere trespassers was unacceptable as they resided in places mostly filthy or marshy out of necessity, not choice.
The State Government’s Defense
The State Government and the corporation used the doctrine of estoppel, arguing that pavement dwellers could not claim their right to livelihood to prevent the demolition of their shacks. They also argued that no fundamental right existed allowing pavement dwellers to construct huts and limit public’s ‘right of way’.
The Current Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court disagreed with the State Government’s argument. It ruled that the right to life of pavement dwellers was violated if they were evicted without a fair hearing. The court recognized the right to livelihood as a vital part of the right to life. It stated that removing one’s means to livelihood effectively rendered one’s right to life void, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court also asserted that pavement dwellers were not trespassers, residing on footpaths out of sheer helplessness and not with any intent to disturb others.
Implications for Future Cases
This landmark judgment has numerous implications for future cases dealing with the rights of marginalized communities, such as the pavement dwellers. With about 20 million pavement dwellers in India, this legal precedent can indeed be a game-changer for similar cases like the one in Jahangirpuri (Delhi).
Relevant Precedents for Civil Service Aspirants
For those preparing for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination, it is essential to note that the right to marry is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This right is a part of one’s right to life and personal liberty, ensuring no person can be deprived of their life or liberty unless by law.