1. Right to a Speedy Trial: The case questioned whether the right to a speedy trial is encompassed within the protections of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

2. Free Legal Aid: The second issue was whether the provision of free legal aid should be interpreted as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, ensuring that all citizens have access to legal representation and justice.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice D.A. Desai, ruled in favor of the petitioner, accepting the allegations as credible due to the absence of the respondent. The Court emphasized that the systemic failures within the judicial system had resulted in significant violations of the fundamental rights of under-trial prisoners.

Outcomes of the judgment included:

• Grant of Bail: The Court ordered the immediate release of the under-trial prisoners whose names were listed in the writ, acknowledging that their prolonged detention violated their rights under Article 21.

• Directions to the State: The Court directed the state government to compile and submit a list of all pending cases by December 31, 1978, along with reasons for delays.

• Free Legal Aid: It mandated that free legal aid be provided to under-trial prisoners charged with bailable offenses, recognizing the need for equal access to justice.

• Bail Criteria: The Court established guidelines for granting bail, focusing on factors such as the length of residence in the community, employment status, family ties, character, prior criminal record, and the nature of the offense. It emphasized that bail should not be denied solely based on the mechanical application of the law but should consider the individual's circumstances.

This judgment not only addressed the immediate concerns of the petitioners but also set a precedent for the rights of under-trial prisoners across India, reinforcing the necessity for a fair and just legal system.

OLGA TELLIS V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Facts

In 1981, the State of Maharashtra, in collaboration with the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC), initiated an urban beautification program that aimed to evict over 50,000 slum and pavement dwellers from their homes. The government issued eviction notices demanding that these individuals vacate public spaces where they had established their residences. A group of petitioners, led by journalist Olga Tellis, challenged the constitutional validity of these eviction notices in the Supreme Court of India, asserting that their rights were being infringed.

Issues

1. Whether the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the rights to livelihood and shelter.

2. Whether Sections 312, 313, and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were constitutionally valid or infringed fundamental rights.

3. Whether the pavement dwellers could be categorized as trespassers under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for residing on public property in an informal manner.

Judgment

On July 10, 1985, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment with several key rulings:

• The Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life as guaranteed by Article 21. It emphasized that evictions conducted without providing alternative housing solutions constitute a fundamental violation of this right, effectively depriving individuals of their means of sustenance.

• The Court rejected the argument that the petitioners had waived their rights by agreeing to a timeline for eviction. It affirmed that there can be no estoppel against the Constitution, and fundamental rights cannot be voluntarily relinquished.

• The Court recognized the government's responsibility to maintain public spaces but mandated that evictions must follow due process. It ruled that affected individuals must receive adequate notice and have the opportunity to present their case before any eviction occurs. Moreover, proper rehabilitation measures must be implemented to ensure the welfare of those displaced.

• This judgment set a significant precedent for protecting the rights of impoverished urban residents in India. It reinforced that state actions, even under municipal laws, must not infringe upon constitutional rights. The ruling prompted the government to reassess its housing policies, necessitating the provision of alternative accommodations before proceeding with evictions.

The Supreme Court's decision in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation highlighted the importance of safeguarding the rights of marginalized communities, affirming that the right to life extends beyond mere existence to include dignity and livelihood.