What is the key holding in Olga Tellis?

The Court read the right to livelihood into Article 21. Eviction affects life and livelihood, but public spaces can be cleared with fair procedure and humane resettlement.

Was Section 314 struck down?

No. In the facts of the case, Section 314 of the BMC Act was not unreasonable. However, its use must follow fair process.

Do pavement dwellers have a right to occupy roads?

They have no right to encroach on spaces meant for public use. Yet, their eviction must respect dignity, notice, and resettlement priorities.

What is the role of Article 39(a)?

It guides the State to secure livelihoods. The Court used it to support a humane, welfare-oriented reading of Article 21.

What relief did long-standing slums receive?

Slums existing for about 20 years should not be removed unless land is needed for public use; if removed, alternative sites must be offered with priority.

Law Easy

01 November, 2025

2001

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985/1986) – Article 21 & Right to Livelihood | The Law Easy

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180)

Supreme Court of India 1985/1986 AIR 1986 SC 180 Constitution Bench Fundamental Rights ~7 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Location: India • Published: 24 Oct 2025

Slug: olga-tellis-v-bombay-municipal-corporation-air-1986-sc-180

Quick Summary

This case links right to life with the right to livelihood. The Court said the State may clear public spaces, but eviction touches life and work, so the process must be fair, humane, and focused on resettlement. Section 314 of the BMC Act was not unreasonable on these facts, but its use needs due care.

CASE_TITLE: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR 1986 SC 180) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 21, right to livelihood, eviction, Section 314 BMC Act SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 19, Article 39(a), slum dwellers, due process (fairness) PUBLISH_DATE: 24-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

```

Issues

Did the eviction orders violate Article 21 (life and livelihood)?
Were the State and BMC actions inconsistent with Articles 19 and 21?
Was Section 314 of the BMC Act arbitrary or unreasonable?

Rules

Article 21 covers livelihood because livelihood is part of life.
Article 39(a) guides the State to secure means of livelihood for all.
Public spaces can be protected from encroachment, but the procedure must be fair and humane.

Facts (Timeline)

1981: Maharashtra and BMC plan eviction of pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay.

Residents seek resettlement if eviction proceeds; State declines and proposes deportation to places of origin.

Pavement and slum dwellers file writ petitions claiming breach of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Sections 312–314 of the BMC Act are challenged as unconstitutional.

Arguments

Appellants (Dwellers)

Eviction without resettlement destroys livelihood → violates Article 21.
Sections 312–314 and the actions taken are arbitrary (Articles 14, 19, 21).
Seek humane process, notice, and alternative sites.

Respondents (State/BMC)

No one has a right to occupy pavements meant for public use.
Statute authorizes removal of encroachments; public safety and order require it.
Reasonable notices and steps were considered; Section 314 is valid.

Judgment

The Court held that no person has a right to encroach on roads or spaces reserved for public use. Yet, eviction affects the right to life because life includes livelihood. Long-standing slums should not be cleared unless land is needed for public use; when cleared, alternative sites and resettlement must get top priority. In the present context, Section 314 was not unreasonable, but authorities must apply it with fairness and notice.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 21 protects livelihood as part of life. Eviction from public land is lawful when required, but the State must ensure fair procedure, humane handling, notice, and priority to resettlement—guided by Article 39(a).

Why It Matters

Recognises livelihood within Article 21—key for urban poverty cases.
Sets humane eviction standards: notice, alternatives, priority to resettlement.
Balances public use of roads with dignity of vulnerable residents.

Key Takeaways

Life includes livelihood under Article 21.
No right to encroach on public ways; clearance must be fair and humane.
Long-standing slums: remove only for public use and with resettlement priority.
Section 314 valid here, but its exercise must follow due fairness.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “LIFE-LIVELIHOOD-LOCATION”

Life: Article 21 includes livelihood.
Livelihood: Eviction must not destroy it without fair process.
Location: Public place protection is valid, but with humane resettlement.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Do mass evictions of pavement/slum dwellers violate Articles 19 and 21? Is Section 314 arbitrary?

Rule

Article 21 includes livelihood; Article 39(a) guides policy; public ways may be cleared with fair, humane procedure.

Application

Encroachments can be removed, but long-standing dwellers deserve notice, alternatives, and resettlement priority.

Conclusion

No right to occupy pavements; Section 314 valid here; eviction must be fair and humane with focus on resettlement.

Glossary

Right to Livelihood: Part of Article 21’s protection of life and dignity.
Humane Eviction: Eviction with notice, fair hearing where possible, and resettlement focus.
Section 314 (BMC Act): Power to remove encroachments; application must be fair and reasonable.

FAQs

Yes. Without livelihood, life loses meaning. So eviction must consider this right.

Yes, to protect public use and safety. But it must follow fair, humane steps.

No. The Court found it reasonable in context, provided it is applied with fairness.

Remove only if land is needed for public use; if removed, give alternative sites with priority to resettlement.

Comment

Nothing for now