K. CHANDRU ETC.ETC.versusSTAIE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

         100


A                                K. CHANDRU ETC.ETC.
                                           v.
                               STAIE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
                                     JULY 10, 1985

B              [Y.V. ChANDRACHUD, CJ., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, V.D. TULZAPURKAR,
                       O. CHlNNAPPA REDIJY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. J

               Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 21 and 19(1)(e) and
         \gJ - !light 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 evic-
•
\;       tion 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, 19U5, 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 (l)(e) and (g) of the Constitution.
D
                The State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu SllDll Areas
         (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 in order to eradicate sllDllB
         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
 E       Loyola College were demolished on November 17, 1981. On the
         follc"1.ng day, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu made a state-
         ment that the Government had decided to demolish sllDllS which had
         come into existence after June 1977. On November 19, 1981 the
         Chairman of the Tamil Nadu SllDll Clearance Board made a statement
         that alternative accommodation had been provided to persons who
 F       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 msndamua have prayed for two reliefs namely, (i) to restrain
         the respondent's State from evicting sllDll dwellers and pavement
         dwellers in the city of Madras, without providing alternative
         accomoodation to them and (11) to direct the respondent's State
    G    to provide basic amenities like water, drainage and electricity
         to the sl... dwellers.

               In the Counter-affidavit filed by the State on behalf of
         the r..apondents the allegation that 450 sllDllS were delllolished
         without offering alternate accomoodation to persona evicted
     H   thereby was denied. While asserting that alternate •ccOlll!IO'lation
                        K. CHANDRU v. STATE                    101


is always provided before the slums are removed and that the          A
provisions contained in section ll(a) of the Tamil Nadu Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 regarding the princi-
ples 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.
                                                                      B
      On a careful consideration of the statements contained in
the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the res.pondents, that
the Government of Tamil Nadu has adopted a benevolent and sympa-
thetic policy in regard to the slum dwellers and finding that
steps are being taken for the purpos~ of improving the slums and
wherever they cannot be improved alternate accolllDOdation is pro-    c
vided 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 pave-       D
ment 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     E
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 liveli-
hood 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        F
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 r.ot 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        G
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 art          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       H
big, cities. They migrate because they have no means of livelihood
    102                SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP;2 s.c.R.


A   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
B   the means of livelihood. It is in this context, it is said
    that the right to work is the ioost precious liberty that man
    possesses. It is the ioost 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 evictioo of a
C   person from a SltDD or a pavement under the provisions of the
    Tamil Nadu Slum Areas {Ilhprovement and Clearance) Act, 1971 read
    with provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 the
    Madras City Municipal Corporatioo 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{l)(e) and (g) of the constitutioo. [79 D,F-H, 80 A-B, 103 D,F,
D    108 CJ

          Olga Tellis & Orso Vo Boebay liJnicipal Corporation & Ors,
    etc.etc. (1985] Supp. 2 s.c.R. p.51 appplied.

           (The Court directed: {i) Since Madras has a late ioonsooo,
E   the pavement dwellers in the city will . not be evicted before
    December 31, 1985: (il.) The State Government will do its best to
    provide alternative acconnnodation to those aioongst them who are
    able to show that they were living on pavement• before June 30,
    1977;(iii) In so far as the slum dwellers are concerned the coun-
    ter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent's State contain
F   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 acconnnodation 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
G   is. r~.quired 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 Goventllll\"nt will have liberty to apply to this Court.)

             ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 8927 & 9380 of
H    1981.
                     K. CHANVllli v. STATE   (CHANDRACHUD, CJ. J   103


                                                                          A
     c.s. Vaidyanathan & Prabir Choudhary for the Petitioner in
w.P. Na. 8927 of 1981.
     M.S. Ganesh and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioners in
w.P. Na. 938U of 1981.
      L.N. Sinha, Attorney General, K.G. Bhagat, Additional Soli-
                                                                          ll
citor General and A.V. Rangam., for the Respondents in W.P. Nos.
8927 & 9380 of 1981.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      CllANDRACHUD, CJ.   By these two writ petitions, the peti-
tioners ask for a writ of mand~s restraining the respondents
                                                                          c
from evictl.ng 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 ameni-
ties like water, drainage and electricity to the slum dwellers.
                                                                          D
       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 ~ank Road adjoining the Loyola College were
demolished on November 17, l9tll. On the following day, the Chief
                                                                           E
M.inistcr ot Tamil Nadu mad~ 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
:-, 'um C1e~~.rance .lioard made a statement that alternative acconnno-
dation had been provided to persons who were evicted from the
slums situated on the Canal Bank koan-
                                                                           F
        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
 ret;arding encroachments on public streets. The Tamil Nadu Slum
                                                                           G
 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 hea~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               H
 authority to direct that no person shall erect any building in a
    104               SUPl@lE COURT Rj';PORTS    [19~5]   SLIPP.2 s.c.R.

A   slum area without its previous permission in writing. Chapter lV
    of the Act contains various provisions for improvement of slum
    areas. Section ll(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, i f any is shown by such owners, the
c   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· all.DD. area, or execute such decree or order if it is
D   already obtained. Chapter Vlll of the Act.deals with the consti-
    tution of the Slum Clearance Board and its powers. Lastly, the
    Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 contains provi-
    sions for the constitution of regional planning authorities,
    local planning authorities and the new town development authorit-
    ies. Under section 17 of that Act, the local planning authority
E   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
F   Report', shows that 43 per cent of the population of Madras lives      1
    in slums, apart from those who live on pavements ; that increas-




                                                                           l
    ing industrialisation 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
G   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,            I
H   integrated and concerted policy to be put through on an emergency
                       K. CHANDRU v. STATE   [ CHANDRACHUD, CJ. J   105


    footing", and that, "the slum dwellers are an essential element        A
    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 leacis a miserable and unhygienic life, devoid of
    basic amenities and elementary requirements of civilised exis-
    tence. The Report concludes by saying -that "The motto of slum
    clearance is: God revealeth in the smile of the poor".
                                                                           c
           The 'Structure Plan for Madras Metropolitan Area' drawn by
    the Madras Metropolitian 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 Clear-
•   ance Board, since its establistu:nent in 1971, had undertaken      a   D
    progranme of investment, which had reached tne 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 Accelarated Slum Develoj>llent
    Schemes (Al:iDS). The Slum Clearance Board was designated as the
    implementing agency by the World Jlank. The current prograunne         E
    which is undertaken by the Board for the improvement of slums, is
    an admirable step which shows a realistic awareness of an urgen~
    social problem. Under the Worid Bank prograunne of slum improve-
    ment, 30,00U 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        F
    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          G
    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 Metropoli-
    tan Development Authority and the CoIIlllissioner of Police, Madras,       H
    a counter-affidavit has     been filed    by Shri C.Ramachandran,
    Connnissioner and Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban
    106               SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [1985j SUPP.2 s.c.R.


A   !Jevelopment Department. The statements contained in that affida-
    vit 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,
B   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 accolllllOdation, certain other persons trespassed
    upon that land and it is only they who were denied alternative
C   accommodation. The reason for fixing a new date-line for enumera-
    tion 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
D   political parties, until June 30, 1977.

          A coiinter-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 under-
E   taken by any other Government on the same scale as is done by the
    Government of Tamil Nadu. In fact, several other States in lndia
    had sent their representatives to Tamil Nadu to study the working
    of its Slum Clearance Board. The Hoard 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
F   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
    Hoard 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
G   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-pur-
    chase basis. Home Improvement loans ranging from Rs. 1, 500 to
H   Rs. 3,500 were given to persons belonging to the lower income
                   k.CHANDRU v. STATE    [CHANUAACHUD, CJ.]      107


group and outright grants made to persons who were in the lowest        A
category. Cottage industries and schools were constructed in the
slllln areas and a number of .income supplementation projects are
started in order to provide means of livelihood to the slum
dwellers. Alternate acconnnodation is always provided before the
s lw11s are removed. The hutments near the Loyola College consis-
ted of two categories, one of which was Pushpa Naga:r, which was a      B
notified slum. That slum was vacated for the purpose of construc-
tion 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 cateiory, which forffied a s.ma.11 minority, was
from Choolaimdu who encroached upon public properties after
finding that the Pushpa Nagar hutment dwellers were being provi-        c
ded alternative accommodation. These persons had their own huts
or residence elsewhere.

      The petitioners have filed rejoinders to the counter-affi-
davits but, except for denying the statments in the counter-affi-
davits, the rejoinders do not contain anything to which reference       D
need be made.

      We are satisfied, on a careful consideration of the state-
ments contained in the count~r-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 acconnnodation 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 sanie dynamic interest in the welfare of the pavement        F
dwellers and sltml dwellers. We may remind the Government, if at
all, of what the Collector of Madras, ohri tladrinath, 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 pave-         G
ment dwellers in the city will not be evicted before December 31,
1985. The State Government will do its best to provide alterna-
tive 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        H
policy of the State Government not to evi~f such of them as were
•   108              SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A
    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
B   land on which any slum stands is required by the State Government
    for an urgent public purpose. In the event that i t 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.
c
          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 obser-
    vations and directions given above. There will be no order as to
D   costs.




    S.R.                                         Petitions dismissed.