http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

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