Olga Tellis Judgment

In News

• A 37-year-old Constitution Bench judgement of the Supreme Court which held that pavement dwellers are different from trespassers may become a game-changer in the Jahangirpuri case.

Background

• Evict the pavement dwellers: In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation the state of Maharashtra in 1981 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict the pavement dwellers and those who were residing in slums in Bombay.
• Deport them to their place of origin: Pursuant to that, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra ordered to evict slum dwellers and pavement dwellers out of Bombay and to deport them to their place of origin.
• The eviction was to proceed under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888.
• Writ petition in the High Court: On hearing about the Chief Minister’s announcement they filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay for an order of injunction restraining the officers of the State Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporations from implementing the directive of the Chief Minister.
• The High Court of Bombay granted an interim injunction to be in force until July 21, 1981. Respondents agreed that the huts will not be demolished until October 15, 1981.
  • Contrary to agreement, on July 23, 1981, petitioners were huddled into State Transport buses for being deported out of Bombay.
• Violation of the law: The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
  • They also asked for a declaration that Section 312, 313 and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 1888 is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Issues involved

• Question of Estoppels against fundamental rights or Waiver of Fundamental Rights
• Scope of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
• Constitutionality of provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
• Whether pavement dwellers are “trespassers” under IPC.
• Did not claim any basic right: The pavement residents had admitted to the High Court that they did not claim any basic right to install cabins on sidewalks or public roads and that they would not prevent their demolition after the scheduled date.

Court’s argument

• Sheer helplessness: 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.
• There can be no depreciation of the Constitution or renunciation of fundamental rights.
• The Right to life guaranteed by Article 21 included the right to a means of subsistence and that he would be deprived of his livelihood if he were expelled from his slums and its sidewalks, which would amount to a deprivation of his rights therefore unconstitutional.
• Eviction using unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is unconstitutional.
  • A welfare state and its authorities should not use its powers of eviction as a means to deprive pavement dwellers of their livelihood.
• Estoppels: The State government and the corporation countered that pavement dwellers should be estopped (estoppel is a judicial device whereby a court may prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions).
  • Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim from contending that the shacks constructed by them on the pavements cannot be demolished because of their right to livelihood.
  • They cannot claim any fundamental right to encroach and put up huts on pavements or public roads over which the public has a ‘right of way.’

Source: TH