The Case of Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others (1985)

Because of numerous Indian historical verdicts, the Indian Constitution is a model of justice, equality, and decency. olga tellis v bombay municipal corporation, was one of those decisions that broadened the concept of fundamental rights and was initially introduced as a model of democratic state management.

Because the judiciary acts as a mechanism to uphold the fundamental rights by taking the place of the legislature to direct governmental policies, the decision recognizes the rights of the second generation as the cornerstones of the rights of the first generation, or the basic rights, and grants the application of broad interpretation. The punishment tends to give rise to the infraction unreasonably and broadens the definition of the right to live.

olga tellis v bombay municipal corporation Case Facts

• The state of Maharashtra and the BMC decided in the case of olga tellis v bombay municipal corporation that squatters and pavement dwellers would be forced out of Bombay in 1981.
• As a result, on July 13, Mr. A. R. Antulay, the then-Governor of Maharashtra, issued an order evicting people from pavement and slums.
• The eviction was scheduled to occur in accordance with Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888.
• They requested an injunction in a writ petition that they filed with the Bombay High Court.
• The Bombay High Court won a temporary interim injunction, which will remain in force until July 21, 1981. The respondents agreed that October 15, 1981 is when the huts will be demolished. On July 23, 1981, petitioners were crammed onto State Transport busses and banished from Bombay, in defiance of the agreement.
• Because the respondent’s actions violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner protested to them.
•  They further requested confirmation that Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution are violated by Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the BMCA of 1888.

olga tellis v bombay municipal corporation Issues

• If evicting a pavement dweller would amount to violating their constitutionally guaranteed right to a livelihood under article 21?
• Were the provisions of the bombay municipal corporation act, 1888, which allowed for the clearing of encroachments without prior notice, arbitrary and unreasonable?
• Whether calling those who live on pavements “trespassers” is against the Constitution?
• Is the state required to offer the impacted individuals alternate accommodations?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

• The petitioner claimed that having some kind of assistance was covered by the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 and noted that losing his slums would mean losing the right, along with its pavements, which would be against these rights. It is therefore unconstitutional.
• The petitioner went on to say that Section 314 of the BMC, 1888 Act, which dealt with clearing encroachment from pavement, was unfair as the municipality commissioner made such a significant decision without consulting anyone beforehand or providing notice.

Respondent:

• Respondents argued that the public’s welfare and the state’s welfare were the main reasons for the necessity to regulate the population and specific activities in particular locations.
• Furthermore, they probably contended that it was necessary to prohibit some activities, such pavement housing and street vending, in order to protect the public and avoid traffic jams. The government was required to monitor public areas exclusively.

olga tellis v bombay municipal corporation Judgment

• On July 10, 1985, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation case. The Court looked into whether it was lawful to kick out Mumbai residents who had been living in pavement and slum settlements for several decades.
• Whether the right to a livelihood and a place to dwell was guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution was the crucial topic on the court’s agenda. The petitioners claimed that the State had infringed their fundamental right to life by forcibly evicting them and denying them a means of subsistence without offering suitable alternatives.
• The petitioners’ arguments were accepted by the court. It was argued that the right to livelihood, which flows from the right to shelter, was part of the right to life. Pavement dwellers would effectively be deprived of their right to life if their means of subsistence were taken away from them without offering them a place to live elsewhere.
• The Court further reasoned that although not directly applicable to non-citizens, Articles 19(1)(e) (right to reside and settle in any part of India’s territory) and 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business) supported the interpretation that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to life.
• This broad reading of Article 21 had far-reaching consequences because it meant that the State could not remove those living in slums without first providing them with appropriate rehabilitation. Thus, the Olga Tellis ruling made the right to shelter an integral component of India’s basic right to life.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf