PETITIONER:
K. CHANDRU ETC.ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/07/1985
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 204 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 100
1985 SCC (3) 536 1985 SCALE (2)31
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21 and 19(1)(e)
and (g)- Right to life under Article 21, whether includes
the right to livelihood, and, if so, since the right to live
and the right to work being integrated and inter dependent,
whether the eviction of a person from a slum or a pavement
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 read with the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905,
the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and the
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 thereby
putting his very right to life in jeopardy, is violative of
Articles 21 and 19 (1)(e) and (g) of the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 in order to
eradicate slums which are likely to become a source of
danger to public health or sanitation. Acting in pursuance
of the provisions of the said Act, about 450 huts situated
on the Canal Bank Road adjoining the Loyola College were
demolished on November 17, 1981. On the following day, the
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made a statement that the
Government had decided to demolish slums which had come into
existence after June 1977. On November 19, 1981 the Chairman
of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board made a statement that
alternative accommodation had been provided to persons who
were evicted from the slums situated on the Canal Bank Road.
The petitioner in these two writ petitions for the issuance
of a writ of mandamus have prayed for two reliefs namely,
(1) to restrain the respondent's State from evicting slum
dwellers and pavement dwellers in the city of Madras,
without providing alternative accommodation to them and (ii)
to direct the respondent's State to provide basic amenities
like water, drainage and electricity to the slum dwellers.
In the Counter-affidavit filed by the State on behalf
of the respondents the allegation that 450 slums were
demolished without offering alternate accommodation to
persons evicted thereby was denied. While asserting that
alternate accommodation
101
is always provided before the slums are removed and that the
provisions contained in section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 regarding the
principles of national justice are followed, it was
explained how and why the hutments near the Loyola College
and Choolaimedu were removed by providing alternate
accommodation.
On a careful consideration of the statements contained
in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the
respondents, that the Government of Tamil Nadu has adopted a
benevolent and sympathetic policy in regard to the slum
dwellers and finding that steps are being taken for the
purpose of improving the slums and wherever they cannot be
improved alternate accommodation is provided to the slum
dwellers before they are evicted, the Court considered it
necessary not to issue any writ or direction to the
respondents.
Expressing the confidence that the Government will
continue to evince the same dynamic interest in the welfare
of the pavement dwellers and slum dwellers and thus
disposing of the petitions, the Court,
^
HELD: The right to life includes the right to
livelihood. The sweep of the right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely
that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for
example, by the imposition and execution of the death
sentence, except according to procedure established by law.
That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally
important facet of that right is the right to livelihood
because, no person can live without the means of living,
that is, the means of livelihood. 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 depriving a person of his means of livelihood
to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only
denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness
but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such
deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the
procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is
not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which
alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life
livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the
right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood
and you shall have deprived him of his life. Indeed, that
explains the massive migration of the rural population to
big cities. They migrate because they have no means of
livelihood
102
in the villages. The motive force which propels their
desertion of their hearth and homes in the village is the
struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for life. So
unimpeachable is the evidence of the nexus between life and
the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live: only a
handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they
can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of
livelihood. It is in this context, it is said that the right
to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It
is the most precious liberty because, it sustains and
enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious
freedom. Since the right to life under Article 21 includes
the right to livelihood and since the right to life and the
right to work being integrated and interdependent, the
eviction of a person from a Slum or a pavement under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, 1971 read with provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Land Encroachment Act, 1905 the Madras City Municipal
Corporation Act, 1919 and the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971 there by putting his very right to life
in jeopardy, is violative of Article 21 and 19(1)(e) and (g)
of the constitution. [79 D,F-H, 80 A-B, 103 D,F, 108 C]
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation &
Ors. etc. [1985] Supp. 2 S.C.R. p.51 applied.
(The Court directed: (1) Since Madras has a late
monsoon, the pavement dwellers in the city will not be
evicted before December 31, 1985: (ii) The State Government
will do its best to provide alternative accommodation to
those amongst them who are able to show that they were
living on pavements before June 30, 1977;(iii) In so far as
the slum dwellers are concerned the counter-affidavits filed
on behalf of the respondent's State contain an assurance
that it is the policy of the State Government not to evict
such of them as were living in the slums prior to June 30,
1977, without providing alternate accommodation to them.
That assurance will bind the Government; and (iv) In so far
as the other slum dwellers are concerned, they too will not
be evicted before December 31, 1985 unless the land on which
any slum stands is required by the State Government for an
urgent public purpose. In the event that it becomes
necessary to evict any of the slum dwellers belonging to
this category prior to December 31, 1985, the State
Government will have liberty to apply to this Court.)
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 8927 & 9380
of 1981.
103
C.S. Vaidyanathan & Prabir Choudhary for the Petitioner
in W.P. No. 8927 of 1981.
M.S. Ganesh and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioners in
W.P. No. 9380 of 1981.
L.N. Sinha, Attorney General, K.G. Bhagat, Additional
Solicitor General and A.V. Rangam, for the Respondents in
W.P. Nos. 8927 & 9380 of 1981.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, CJ. By these two writ petitions, the
petitioners ask for a writ of mandamus restraining the
respondents from evicting the slum dwellers and pavement
dwellers in the city of Madras, without providing
alternative accommodation to them. They also pray that the
respondents should provide basic amenities like water,
drainage and electricity to the slum dwellers.
The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 in order to
eradicate slums which are likely to become a source of
danger to public health or sanitation. It is alleged by the
petitioners that, acting in pursuance of the provisions of
the said Act, about 450 huts situated on the Canal Bank Road
adjoining the Loyola College were demolished on November 17,
1981 the On the following day, the Chief Minister of Tamil
Nadu made a statement that the Government had decided to
demolish slum which had come into existence after June 1977.
On November 19, 1981 the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Slum
Clearance Board made a statement that alternative
accommodation had been provided to persons who were evicted
from the slums situated on the Canal Bank Road-
The Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 provides by
section 2 that all public roads, streets, lanes, paths,
etc., are the property of the State Government. The Madras
City Municipal (Corporation) Act, 1919 contains provisions
in sections 220-222 regarding encroachments on public
streets. The Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, 1971 was passed in order to make provision
for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State.
Section 3 of that Act contains provisions for the
declaration of an area as a slum area if, inter alia, such
area is or may be a source of danger to the health or safety
of the public by reason of the area being low-lying,
insanitary, squalid or over-crowded. Section 5 of that Act
empowers the prescribed authority to direct that no person
shall erect any building in a
104
slum area without its previous permission in writing.
Chapter IV of the Act contains various provisions for
improvement of slum areas. Section 11(a) provides that if
the Government is satisfied that the most satisfactory
method of dealing with the conditions in a slum area is the
clearance of such area and demolition of all the buildings
therein, it may by a notification declare the area to be a
slum clearance area, that is to say, an area to be cleared
of all buildings in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. The provision to that section, which is important,
requires that before issuing such notification, the
Government shall call upon the owners of lands and buildings
in such slum area, to show cause why such a declaration
should not be made and that, after considering the cause, if
any is shown by such owners, the Government may pass such
orders as it may deem fit. Section 29 of the Act provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, no person shall, except with the
previous permission in writing of the prescribed authority,
institute any suit or proceeding for obtaining a decree or
order of eviction of an occupant of any building of land in
a slum area, or execute such decree or order if it is
already obtained. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with the
constitution of the Slum Clearance Board and its powers.
Lastly, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
contains provisions for the constitution of regional
planning authorities, local planning authorities and the new
town development authorities. Under section 17 of that Act,
the local planning authority is under an obligation to
prepare a ‘master plan’ for the local planning area
providing, inter alia, for the manner in which the land in
the planning area shall be used.
The Report prepared by Shri Badrinath, the Collector of
Madras, which is called the ‘Urban Development of Greater
Madras Report’, shows that 43 per cent of the population of
Madras lives in slums, apart from those who live on
pavements ; that increasing industrialization of the city
has led to the proliferation of slums and that, the
Government and the private sector shall have to work in
collaboration if any appreciable improvement of the slums
has to be brought about. The ‘Socio-Economic Survey of
Madras Slums’ by Shri R.Arangannal, Chairman of the Tamil
Nadu Slum Clearance Board, contains significant data
regarding the conditions of slums in Tamil Nadu. It is
heartening to find that the Report contains a statement that
“the Tamil Nadu Government realised that the feeble,
halting, incomplete and disconcerted measures of the past
have to give place to a comprehensive, integrated and
concerted policy to be put through on an emergency
105
footing”, and that, “the slum dwellers are an essential
element in city life, who are as necessary as any other
section of the population for the life of the city”. The
Survey Report shows that out of 1202 slums, 454 are situated
in the north of Madras and 748 in the south, about 6% of the
total area of the land in Madras being occupied by slums.
According to the Survey Report, though Madras is called the
‘City Beautiful’, there are 1202 “ugly spots” in the city,
which hold one-third of the city’s population which leads a
miserable and unhygienic life, devoid of basic amenities and
elementary requirements of civilised existence. The Report
concludes by saying that “The motto of slum clearance is:
God revealeth in the smile of the poor”.
The ‘Structure Plan for Madras Metropolitan Area’ drawn
by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, says that
despite the efforts to reduce the emergence of slums, 3025
huts came into existence every year between 1971 and 1978,
showing an increase of 3.34% per annum. The Structure Plan
shows that the Slum Clearance Board, since its establishment
in 1971, had undertaken a programme of investment, which had
reached the figure of Rs.34.06 crores by 1979. In addition
to the clearance of certain slums through transfer of their
occupants to tenement buildings, the Board undertook the
improvement of slums under the Environmental Improvement
Schemes (EIS) and the Accelerated Slum Development Schemes
(ASDS). The Slum Clearance Board was designated as the
implementing agency by the World Bank. The current programme
which is undertaken by the Board for the improvement of
slums, is an admirable step which shows a realistic
awareness of an urgent social problem. Under the World Bank
programme of slum improvement, 30,000 households benefited
during the period 1977 to 1980 and nearly 50,000 slum
dwellers benefited during the course of the next four years.
The accent of the Tamil Nadu Government is on the
improvement of slums rather than on their clearance.
Paragraph 10.45 of the Structure Plan says that arrangements
are proposed to be made to transfer ‘patta’ (security of
tenure) rights to those slums which are situated on public
lands and which are selected for upgrading. Since slums
which are situated on the river banks and in narrow
inaccessible areas cannot be improved, they are proposed to
be removed. The families affected by such removal will be
offered alternate tenements, sites or service plots.
On behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras
Metropolitan Development Authority and the Commissioner of
Police, Madras, a counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri
C.Ramachandran, Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government, Housing and Urban
106
Development Department. The statements contained in that
affidavit may be summed up thus : The allegation that 450
slums were demolished without offering alternate
accommodation to persons affected thereby, is untrue. The
policy of the State Government is to improve the living
conditions in the slum areas and to provide sanitation,
drainage, water supply, school, health care, etc., to the
slum dwellers. The State Government spends over three crores
of rupees every year for construction of tenements for slum
dwellers. Alternative accommodation for 438 families of
Pushpa Nagar was ready for being offered to displaced slum
dwellers. Finding that the Pushpa Nagar slum dwellers were
being given alternative accommodation, certain other persons
trespassed upon that land and it is only they who were
denied alternative accommodation. The reason for fixing a
new date-line for enumeration of slum dwellers was that
several representations were received by the Government that
the earlier date, January 1, 1974, resulted in the
elimination of many persons who, because of the floods of
1977, had lost documentary evidence showing that they were
in occupation of the slum prior 1974. That date was
therefore extended by the Government, after consulting all
political parties, until June 30, 1977.
A counter-affidavit has also been filed by Shri
T.K.Kapali, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
The statements in that affidavit may be summed up thus : The
rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, which is a colossal
task, has not been undertaken by any other Government on the
same scale as is done by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In
fact, several other States in India had sent their
representatives to Tamil Nadu to study the working of its
Slum Clearance Board. The Board had so far built 38,000
tenements for slum dwellers. A sum of rupees thirty five
crores was spent for constructing these tenements and a sum
of five to six crores is spent every year for that purpose.
Though the cost of a tenement given to a slum dweller comes
to about Rs. 16,000 for which the fair rent would be Rs. 105
per month, the Board was charging a licence fee of Rs. 20
per month only to them. 95,414 families had benefited on
account of the facilities provided under the Environmental
Improvement Scheme and 75,000 additional families were being
provided amenities under the World Bank Project. A sum of
Rs.19 crores was proposed to be spent during the next four
years for improving the living conditions of the slum
dwellers. Under that scheme, lands on which huts have been
constructed are allotted to the hut dwellers on hire-
purchase basis. Home Improvement loans ranging from Rs.
1,500 to Rs. 3,500 were given to persons belonging to the
lower income
107
group and outright grants made to persons who were in the
lowest category. Cottage industries and schools were
constructed in the slum areas and a number of income
supplementation projects are started in order to provide
means of livelihood to the slum dwellers. Alternate
accommodation is always provided before the slums are
removed. The hutments near the Loyola College consisted of
two categories, one of which was Pushpa Nagar, which was a
notified slum. That slum was vacated for the purpose of
construction of a multi-storeyed building at a cost of Rs.
47.79 Lakhs for the sole purpose of Housing the slum
dwellers of Pushpa Nagar. The other category, which formed a
small minority, was from Choolaimdu who encroached upon
public properties after finding that the Pushpa Nagar
hutment dwellers were being provided alternative
accommodation. These persons had their own huts or residence
elsewhere.
The petitioners have filed rejoinders to the counter-
affidavits but, except for denying the statements in the
counter-affidavits, the rejoinders do not contain anything
to which reference need be made.
We are satisfied, on a careful consideration of the
statements contained in the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents, that the Government of Tamil Nadu
has adopted a benevolent and sympathetic policy in regard to
the slum dwellers. Steps are being taken for the purpose of
improving the slums and wherever they cannot be improved,
alternate accommodation is provided to the slum dwellers,
before they are evicted. In view of this position, we do not
consider it necessary to issue any writ or direction to the
Government of Tamil Nadu. We will only express our
confidence that the Government will continue to evince the
same dynamic interest in the welfare of the pavement
dwellers and slum dwellers. We may remind the Government, if
at all, of what the Collector of Madras, Shri Badrinath, has
stated in his Report : “The motto of slum clearance is : God
revealeth in the smile of the poor.” Let the poor smile for
a while.
Since Madras has a late monsoon, we direct that the
pavement dwellers in the city will not be evicted before
December 31, 1985. The State Government will do its best to
provide alternative accommodation to those amongst them who
are able to show that they were living on pavements before
June 30, 1977. Insofar as the slum dwellers are concerned,
the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents
contain an assurance that it is the policy of the State
Government not to evict such of them as were
108
living in the slums prior to June 30, 1977, without
providing alternate accommodation to them. That assurance
will bind the Government. Insofar as the other slum dwellers
are concerned, they too will not be evicted before December
31, 1985 unless the land on which any slum stands is
required by the State Government for an urgent public
purpose. In the event that it becomes necessary to evict any
of the slum dwellers belonging to this category prior to
December 31, 1985, the State Government will have liberty to
apply to this Court.
Our decision of the constitutional points in the cases
of the Bombay Pavement and Slum Dwellers will govern these
writ petitions also.
The writ petitions will stand disposed of with the
observations and directions given above. There will be no
order as to costs.
S.R. Petitions dismissed.
109