INDIA
CitationAIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545
CourtSupreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Date10 July 1985
Year1985
BenchY.V. Chandrachud CJ, S.M. Fazl Ali, V.D. Tulzapurkar, O. Chinnappa Reddy, A. Varadarajan JJ.
Acts/ArticlesArticle 21, Article 19(1)(g)
CategoryConstitutional Law

Key Principle Established

Right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Pavement dwellers cannot be evicted without due process and alternative arrangements.

Brief Facts

The Bombay Municipal Corporation ordered mass eviction of pavement and slum dwellers. Lakhs of persons who lived on pavements challenged this as violative of their fundamental right to livelihood.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitution Bench held that right to livelihood is part of Article 21. Since pavement dwellers live where they work, evicting them deprives them of their livelihood. While the right is not absolute, eviction cannot be carried out without following due process and providing reasonable notice.

Impact & Significance

The Pavement Dwellers Case remains the foundational judgment on right to livelihood and urban poor rights. It has been cited in every subsequent case involving slum demolition and eviction of the urban poor.

Tags & Related Topics

Constitutional Law Article 21 Article 19(1)(g)
← Previous Judgment Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
Next Judgment → Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India

Related Judgments

1982

Randhir Singh v. Union of India

(1982) 1 SCC 618

Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.

Read Analysis
2020

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

(2020) 9 SCC 1

Daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — irrespective of whether the father…

Read Analysis
1984

B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute

(1984) 1 SCC 131

An institution receiving government grants is "State" under Article 12. Employees of such bodies are entitled to Article 14 and…

Read Analysis

Disclaimer

This judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).

Need Case Law Research or Legal Representation?

22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Call: +919915442266