Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Civil Procedure CodeShort summary
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. Pavements and footpaths are public property meant for the use of the general public, and pavement dwellers do not have a legal right to occupy them. However, the Court held that the State must give adequate notice and an opportunity of hearing...
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21. Pavements and footpaths are public property meant for the use of the general public, and pavement dwellers do not have a legal right to occupy them. However, the Court held that the State must give adequate notice and an opportunity of hearing before evicting pavement dwellers, as their removal directly impacts their right to livelihood and life.
Case brief
Log in to read the full case brief. Payment access can be added here later without changing the reading flow.