The Constitution of India exemplifies justice, equality, and morality, largely due to historical rulings such as Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. This landmark case is noted for expanding the scope of fundamental rights and illustrating democratic governance principles. It recognizes that second-generation rights build upon first-generation rights and supports a broad interpretation of these rights. The judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting fundamental rights by guiding governmental policies, effectively filling in legislative gaps. This case thus broadens the right to life and ensures protection against unreasonable infringements.
Let's know more about the case in more detail
Name of the Case
Olga Tellis v/s Bombay Municipal Corporation
Writ Petition No.
4610-4612 & 5068-5079 Of 1981
Citation
AIR 1986 SC 180; (1985) 3 SCC 545
Appellant
Olga Tellis and Ors.
Respondent
Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Bench/Judges
Hon'ble Justice V Chandrachud,
C.J; Vardarajan;
Chinnappa Reddy;
Murtaza Fazal Ali and
D. Tulzapurkar
Acts Involved
Constitution of India, 1950; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
Important Sections
Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 19(1), 21, 22, 25, 29, 32, 37, 39 and 41; Section 441; Sections 312, 313, and 314
Date of Judgment:
10th July, 1985
FACTS ABOUT THE CASE
- In 1981, the Maharashtra government and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict slum and pavement dwellers from Bombay.
- Chief Minister A. R. Antulay ordered the eviction and deportation of these individuals to their places of origin on July 13, 1981.
- The eviction was to be carried out under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act of 1888.
- The affected individuals filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction to prevent the eviction.
- The High Court granted a temporary injunction effective until July 21, 1981, and the respondents agreed not to demolish the huts until October 15, 1981.
- Despite this agreement, on July 23, 1981, the petitioners were forcibly put onto State Transport buses for deportation.
- The petitioners challenged this action, claiming it violated their constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21.
- They also sought a declaration that Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
ISSUE RAISED
Issue of Fundamental Rights Waiver or Estoppel against Fundamental Rights
Article 21 and Right to Life
Constitutionality of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act of 1888's provisions
Status of sidewalk inhabitants as "trespassers" in the IPC
ARGUMENT
BY PETITIONER
- The petitioner argued that the "right to life" under Article 21 includes the right to receive support and that relocating from their slum would deprive them of this right, including access to pavements, thus constituting a violation of their rights and making it unconstitutional.
- Additionally, the petitioner contended that Section 314 of the BMC Act, 1888, which deals with removing encroachments from pavements, was unfair because the municipality's commissioner made this significant decision without prior notice or information.
BY RESPONDENT
- Respondents argued that regulating population and some activities in certain areas was essential for the state's welfare and the public good.
- They likely believed that restrictions on activities like pavement dwelling or street vending were necessary for public safety and to prevent congestion.
- It was suggested that the government should oversee public spaces.
JUDGEMENT
The Court ruled that the right to sustenance is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This includes ensuring that citizens have access to work and means of survival. The Court also determined that Fundamental Rights cannot be negated by estoppel claims. Pavement dwellers are entitled to the right to earn a livelihood, which is considered part of the Right to Life. The Court recommended humane and considerate enforcement of Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888, especially for marginalized groups. Additionally, it found that petitioners living in slums due to unavoidable circumstances were not committing criminal trespass. These principles have been affirmed in various cases, often leading to evictions carried out without prior notice.
CONCLUSION
In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court underscored the right to livelihood and housing for individuals residing in slums, protecting them from arbitrary government actions. The Court emphasized the necessity of providing an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, it noted that since the petitioners had been forced to live in slums due to factors beyond their control, there was no criminal intent or trespass involved.
Post a Comment