Key Terms & Concepts — UPSC Mains
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
"The Supreme Court judgment holding that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, decided in a case brought by pavement dwellers facing eviction."
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) was brought by pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay who faced summary eviction without notice or a hearing. The petitioners argued that eviction would deprive them of their livelihood, since their dwelling location was inseparable from their means of earning a living. The Supreme Court, authored by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, held that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life, since no person can live without the means of living, and that eviction without a fair hearing would violate natural justice. However, the Court also held that the petitioners did not have a fundamental right to encroach on public pavements, balancing the livelihood claim against the public's competing interest in unobstructed roads and footpaths. The case created a direct and enduring tension with any subsequent claim to unobstructed footpaths, since both claims, the pavement dweller's livelihood and the pedestrian's safe passage, are Article 21 claims to the same physical space.
Prelims tests the case name and its 'right to livelihood' holding; Mains uses it to discuss the competing-rights tension between pavement dwellers/street vendors and pedestrians, one of the sharpest tensions in current Article 21 jurisprudence.
- 1 Decided by the Supreme Court in 1985, authored by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.
- 2 Held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
- 3 Recognised no fundamental right to encroach on public pavements.
- 4 Creates a direct tension with the 2026 right-to-walk judgment, since both assert Article 21 claims to the same footpath space.
- 5 The competing claim of street vendors is now protected by the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
The 2026 footpath judgment notes the 'Olga Tellis irony': the 1985 case protected pavement dwellers from eviction on livelihood grounds, while the 2026 ruling asserts a competing pedestrian claim to the same physical space.
