ओल्गा टेलिस बनाम बॉम्बे म्युनिसिपल कॉर्पोरेशन
| Citation | AIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) |
| Date | 10 July 1985 |
| Year | 1985 |
| Bench | Y.V. Chandrachud CJ, S.M. Fazl Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, O. Chinnappa Reddy, A. Varadarajan JJ. |
| Acts/Articles | Article 21, Article 19(1)(g) |
| Category | Constitutional Law |
Key Principle Established
Right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Pavement dwellers cannot be evicted without due process and alternative arrangements.
The Bombay Municipal Corporation ordered mass eviction of pavement and slum dwellers. Lakhs of persons who lived on pavements challenged this as violative of their fundamental right to livelihood.
The Constitution Bench held that right to livelihood is part of Article 21. Since pavement dwellers live where they work, evicting them deprives them of their livelihood. While the right is not absolute, eviction cannot be carried out without following due process and providing reasonable notice.
The Pavement Dwellers Case remains the foundational judgment on right to livelihood and urban poor rights. It has been cited in every subsequent case involving slum demolition and eviction of the urban poor.
(1984) 3 SCC 243
Release of bonded labourers without rehabilitation is cruelty. The State must ensure identification, release AND rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Read Analysis(1986) 3 SCC 632
Children cannot be kept in jails. Directions issued for establishment of juvenile courts, children's homes, and appointment of duty counsel…
Read AnalysisAIR 1993 SC 1960
State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any…
Read AnalysisThis judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).
22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.