1985 (7) TMI 370 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Livelihood and Fair Eviction Procedures

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood under Article 21 includes the right to reside and settle, but individuals cannot encroach on public ... - Issues Involved:1. Right to Livelihood u/s Article 21 of the Constitution.2. Right to Reside and Settle u/s Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution.3. Validity of Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.4. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice in Eviction Processes.5. Government's Obligations towards Slum and Pavement Dwellers.Summary of Judgment:1. Right to Livelihood u/s Article 21 of the Constitution:The Supreme Court recognized that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The Court stated, 'If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.'2. Right to Reside and Settle u/s Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution:The petitioners' contention that they have a right to reside and settle in any part of the country, including pavements and slums, was examined. The Court held that no one has the right to encroach upon public property for private use without authorization. The right to reside and settle does not confer a license to trespass upon public property.3. Validity of Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:The Court upheld the validity of Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. It stated that these provisions are conceived in public interest to keep pavements and public streets free from encroachments. The Court emphasized that the procedure prescribed by Section 314, which allows removal of encroachments without notice, is not unreasonable, unfair, or unjust in the circumstances of the case.4. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice in Eviction Processes:The Court acknowledged that procedural fairness is essential and that the principles of natural justice must be observed. However, it also recognized that in cases of urgency, the Commissioner has the discretion to remove encroachments without prior notice. The Court stated, 'The decision to dispense with notice cannot be founded upon a presumed impregnability of the proposed action.'5. Government's Obligations towards Slum and Pavement Dwellers:The Court referred to the assurances given by the State Government in its pleadings. It directed that pavement dwellers who were censused in 1976 should be given alternate pitches at Malavani or other convenient places. Slum dwellers who were given identity cards and whose dwellings were numbered in the 1976 census must be provided alternate sites for resettlement. The Court also emphasized the need for the Government to pursue housing schemes and programs earnestly.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that no person has the right to encroach upon public property, and the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act are valid. The Court directed that pavement and slum dwellers should not be evicted until one month after the end of the current monsoon season (October 31, 1985) and that the Government must provide alternate accommodation to eligible dwellers as per the 1976 census. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.