| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Citation | 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51, 1985 SCC (3) 545 |
| Decided | 10 July 1985 |
| Bench | Y.V. Chandrachud, Syed Murtaza Fazl Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, O. Chinnappa Reddy, A.V. Varadarajan |
In short: The Court ruled that the constitutional right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, so evicting pavement and slum dwellers without due process violates the Constitution.
Facts
Pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay, including the petitioners led by Olga Tellis, were ordered by the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation to vacate their habitations. The petitioners challenged the eviction, arguing that it would deprive them of their means of earning a living, which they claimed fell within the protection of Article 21.
Issues
- Does the right to life under Article 21 include the right to livelihood?
- Can the State evict pavement and slum dwellers without following a fair procedure?
- What procedural safeguards must be observed when a deprivation of life or liberty is contemplated?
Held
- The right to life guaranteed by Article 21 has a wide sweep and **includes the right to livelihood**.
- Eviction that deprives a person of his means of livelihood therefore infringes Article 21 unless it is carried out according to a **fair, just and reasonable procedure** established by law.
- The authorities must give notice and an opportunity to be heard; the power to act “without notice” under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act must be exercised **reasonably, fairly and justly**.
- To minimise hardship, the Court directed that evictions should not be carried out until **one month after the end of the monsoon season**.
Why it matters
This judgment is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence on socio‑economic rights. It established that the right to life is not merely a biological guarantee but includes the means to earn a living. Consequently, any government action that threatens the livelihood of the poor—such as demolition of slums or forced evictions—must satisfy the procedural fairness requirements of Article 21. The principle continues to guide courts in cases involving housing, land acquisition, and displacement, ensuring that vulnerable groups receive due process before being deprived of their homes.
Exam one-liner
Article 21’s right to life embraces the right to livelihood, so evictions must follow a fair, reasonable procedure.
Frequently asked questions
What relief did the Court give to the petitioners?
The Court ordered that evictions could not be carried out until one month after the monsoon season, giving the dwellers time to make alternative arrangements.