The Persistent Existence of Slums in Mumbai: A Historical Perspective and Legal Implications
The persistence of slums in Mumbai and other cities around the world has been a long-standing issue, often in the face of authorities' attempts to end slumification. The story of how these settlements emerged and survived lies in a landmark legal judgment issued in 1985, known as the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case.
Why Slums Persist in Mumbai
In 1981, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, A R Antulay, announced a plan to remove all the slums of Bombay, citing encroachments onto pavements and a lack of space for movement in the city. Similar themes were prominent in numerous 1970s and 1980s movies, where builders often sought to demolish slums.
Legislative and Administrative Efforts to Evict Slum Dwellers
The Mumbai Municipality (BMC) began an eviction drive using a section of the 1888 BMC act, which mandated eviction without prior notice for “trespassers” on government property. Despite protests and petitions from slum groups and a journalist, Olga Tellis, the evictions continued, leading to a landmark legal case.
The Olga Tellis Case and Its Impact
Ramming through the evictions, BMC and the Maharashtra government argued that health and social hazards, along with increasing crime rates, justified their actions. However, Olga Tellis and her petition presented a different argument based on second-generation rights.
Second Generation Rights and the Case
Second-generation rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to livelihood, are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution but are deemed essential for life. In the petition, slum dwellers asserted that the right to live close to their work is a fundamental part of their right to life, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court's ruling in 1985 was a landmark decision, affirming the second-generation rights of slum dwellers. The court recognized that for many, living close to their livelihood is essential for the right to life. The decision had several key outcomes:
The court ordered the BMC not to evict anyone until one month after the monsoon season. The court stated that the 1888 BMC act's provisions do not apply universally, indicating that eviction powers are an exception rather than a rule. However, the court did not provide any rulings on the rights to housing or rehabilitation, leaving these as 'third-generation rights'.As a result, the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 case became a significant landmark judgment in India. It paved the way for the provision of essential services like electricity, water, and healthcare to slum dwellers, ensuring that their basic human rights were recognized.
The Evolution of Slum Policies and Adaptations
The landmark judgment changed the approach to slum management. Previously, illegal settlements were often seen as temporary and dispensable. However, the judgment ushered in a period where slum dwellers began to receive essential services. This change is evident in the provision of infrastructure, such as electricity, water, and sanitation, in illegal settlements.
The decision also impacted film portrayals. Bollywood movies, known for showing the harsh realities of slum life, started to reflect the new reality, with scenes of evictions becoming irrelevant.
Monsoon Clause and Prior Notice Requirement
A significant clause from the judgment is the monsoon clause, which states that evictions cannot take place during the monsoon months, providing temporary relief and disrupting the eviction process.
The decision also necessitated that prior notice be given to slum dwellers before evictions, further reinforcing their legal rights and protections.
As a result, cities like Mumbai have seen major slums, such as Dharavi, survive and even evolve. The legal acknowledgment of the second-generation rights of slum dwellers has transformed policies and practices in urban management, ensuring that these communities are not only recognized but also supported in their right to life and livelihood.