K. CHANDRU ETC.ETC. versus STAIE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 10-07-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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. CHAND RU v. STATE 
101 
is always 
provided before the slums are removed and that the 
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. 
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-
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-
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 
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 
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 est

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.