SC upheld ‘pavement dwellers’ right

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation's bulldozers' show of strength against roadside stalls, and push carts in Delhi's Jahangirpuri have faced resistance from a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court which had upheld the right to livelihood of pavement dwellers 

• In North Delhi area, several concrete and temporary structures were demolished in the violence-hit Jahangirpuri during an anti-encroachment drive carried out by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
• However, the action has faced resistance from a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court which had upheld the right to livelihood of pavement dwellers who ply their trade on the footpaths out of sheer economic compulsions.
• Bench: a five-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud.

Key-points made by the apex court

The SC Bench made the following points:

• The pavement dwellers cannot be treated as trespassers, their eviction should not lead to deprivation of their livelihoods.
• Right to Life: They should not be subject to harassment adding that their right to livelihood was an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Right to Shelter: Right to shelter was a fundamental right under Article 21. It was a right recognised by international conventions and an integral part of the principles of natural justice.
• Fair procedure: Though the right to reside and settle in any part of India under Article 19 (1) (e) cannot be read to confer the licence to encroach and trespass upon public property, the eviction of pavement dwellers and traders should be in accordance with the procedure established by law.
  • This “procedure” should be “fair, just and reasonable”.

The right to life includes the protection of one’s means of subsistence; obligations to provide natural justice prior to eviction, but no automatic right to resettlement under Indian law.

Olga Tellis case

• The Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation judgment in 1985 ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers using unreasonable force, without giving them a chance to explain is
• It is a violation of their right to livelihood.
• The case started in 1981 when the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided that pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay city should be evicted and “deported to their respective places of origin or places outside the city of Bombay.”
• The court had emphatically objected to authorities treating pavement dwellers as mere trespassers.
• They (pavement dwellers) manage to find a habitat in places which are mostly filthy or marshy, out of sheer helplessness.
• It is not as if they have a free choice to exercise as to whether to commit an encroachment and if so, where.

What were the questions discussed before the Supreme Court?

• Right to livelihood: Whether eviction of a pavement dweller would amount to depriving him/her of their livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The Article mandates that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
• To label ‘trespassers’ or not: The Supreme Court also decided to examine the question whether it was constitutionally impermissible to characterise pavement dwellers as trespassers.

Understanding the broader concept

• In search for better economic opportunities: The people migrate from small villages looking for employment opportunities as there are not enough employment opportunities in their village or small towns.
• People are homeless due to financial problem, natural calamities, lack of employment opportunities.
• Secondly, Social reason. The pavement dwellers are considered to be the poorest of the poor. They live in kucha house made of plastic, polythene, cardboard, straws, bamboos etc. They try to settle themselves near the place they work.
• Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban)(PMAY-U)– It was launched in June 2015 with the objective of providing affordable housing to all the urban poor.