Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court balanced right to livelihood (Article 21) with urban planning needs by holding that eviction of pavement dwellers requires:
- Complete prohibition of eviction under any circumstances
- Due procedure, alternative arrangement, and rehabilitation to minimize hardship
- Immediate eviction without notice for public health reasons
- Compensation only, no requirement for alternative shelter
Answer: Due procedure, alternative arrangement, and rehabilitation to minimize hardship
Right to livelihood and urban planning: (a) Olga Tellis (1985): SC held: (i) Right to livelihood integral to Article 21; eviction without alternative arrangement violates right to life, (ii) But State can evict for public purpose (urban planning, public health) with due procedure, (iii) Requirements: Notice, hearing, alternative shelter/rehabilitation to minimize hardship, (b) Applications: (i) Slum rehabilitation: Policies balancing urban development with housing rights (e.g., PMAY-U), (ii) Street vendors: Street Vendors Act, 2014 protects livelihood while regulating public spaces, (iii) Displacement: Land acquisition, infrastructure projects require rehabilitation, resettlement per Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, (c) Proportionality test: Balances public interest (urban planning, infrastructure) vs. individual rights (livelihood, shelter): (i) Legitimate aim: Public purpose (sanitation, traffic, development), (ii) Rational connection: Eviction suitable to achieve aim, (iii) Necessity: Less restrictive alternatives considered (in-situ upgradation, regulated vending zones), (iv) Balancing: Benefits of development vs. hardship to displaced; rehabilitation minimizes harm, (d) Challenges: (i) Implementation gaps: Rehabilitation promises not fulfilled, inadequate alternative arrangements, (ii) Political will: Balancing development pressures with rights protection, (iii) Capacity: Resources for rehabilitation, monitoring compliance, (e) Illustrates calibrated rights balancing: Public interest in urban planning balanced with individual rights through procedural safeguards, rehabilitation; proportionality ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary.