Understanding the Olga Tellis judgment

Understanding the Olga Tellis judgment

Subject: Polity

Section: Constitution

Context- How is the judgment relevant to the ‘anti-encroachment’ drive in Jahangirpuri?

Concept-

The story so far:

• A 37-year-old Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court which held that pavement dwellers are different from trespassers may become a game-changer in the Jahangirpuri case.
• The apex court ruled that pavement dwellers live on “filthy footpaths out of sheer helplessness” and not with the object of offending, insulting, intimidating or annoying anyone.
• They live and earn on footpaths because they have “small jobs to nurse in the city and there is nowhere else to live.”

What is the Olga Tellis judgment?

• The judgment, Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, in 1985 by a five-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud agrees that pavement dwellers do occupy public spaces unauthorised. However, the court maintained they should be given a chance to be heard and a reasonable opportunity to depart “before force is used to expel them.”
• The case started in 1981 when the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided that pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay city should be evicted and “deported to their respective places of origin or places outside the city of Bombay.”
• One major question was whether eviction of a pavement dweller would amount to depriving him/her of their livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
• The Supreme Court reasoned that eviction using unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is unconstitutional.
• Pavement dwellers, too, have a right to life and dignity. The right to life included the right to livelihood. They earn a meagre livelihood by living and working on the footpaths. A welfare state and its authorities should not use its powers of eviction as a means to deprive pavement dwellers of their livelihood.
• The Constitution Bench was also asked to determine if provisions in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, allowing the removal of encroachments without prior notice, were arbitrary and unreasonable.

Article 21 of the Constitution:

• According to Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners