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

Ar