Skip to content
Home » Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes

1. What is the Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation Case all about?

The Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case in 1985 is a landmark judgement addressing the issue of the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case arose when the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) decided to evict pavement dwellers and slum dwellers from public spaces in Bombay (now Mumbai), which was challenged by Olga Tellis and others.

2. Facts of the Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation Case Relevant for UPSC

  • Parties Involved:
  • Olga Tellis and other pavement and slum dwellers (petitioners)
  • Bombay Municipal Corporation (respondent)
  • Legal Questions:
  • Whether the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • Whether the eviction of pavement and slum dwellers without providing alternative accommodation violated their fundamental rights.
  • Noteworthy Events:
  • The BMC decided to evict pavement and slum dwellers to clear public spaces, claiming that their presence caused public nuisance and obstructed traffic.
  • Olga Tellis, a journalist, and other affected individuals challenged the eviction, arguing that it violated their right to life and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. What are the Major Judgements/Changes Brought by Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation Case?

The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgement that recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life:

  • The Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It stated that no person can be deprived of their livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law.
  • It ruled that the eviction of pavement and slum dwellers without providing them with alternative accommodation violated their fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the state has a duty to ensure that displaced individuals are rehabilitated and provided with suitable alternative accommodation.
  • The judgement directed the BMC to formulate and implement a scheme for the resettlement of pavement and slum dwellers, ensuring that they are not rendered homeless.

4. What was the Impact of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation Case on Indian Constitution?

  • Expansion of Article 21: The judgement expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to livelihood, ensuring broader protection of fundamental rights.
  • State Responsibility: It established the principle that the state has a responsibility to protect and ensure the livelihood of its citizens, particularly the marginalized and vulnerable sections of society.
  • Promotion of Social Justice: The ruling promoted social justice by emphasizing the need for humane and fair treatment of pavement and slum dwellers, recognizing their right to shelter and livelihood.

5. Was this Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation Case Challenged/Reversed in Future?

The principles established in the Olga Tellis case have been upheld in subsequent legal proceedings and continue to guide the interpretation and implementation of the right to livelihood in India. The judgement remains a key reference for protecting the rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations.

6. Doctrines/Theories/New Concepts

  • Doctrine of Right to Livelihood: The case introduced the principle that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, ensuring broader protection of fundamental rights.
  • State’s Duty to Rehabilitate: The judgement emphasized the state’s duty to rehabilitate individuals displaced by state actions, ensuring that they are provided with suitable alternative accommodation and not rendered homeless.
  • Protection of Marginalized Populations: The ruling highlighted the need for social justice and humane treatment of marginalized and vulnerable populations, ensuring their right to shelter and livelihood is protected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.