In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court balanced right to livelihood (Article 21) with urban planning needs by holding that eviction of pavement dwellers requires:

Right to livelihood and urban planning: (a) Olga Tellis (1985): SC held: (i) Right to livelihood integral to Article 21; eviction without alternative arrangement violates right to life, (ii) But State can evict for public purpose (urban planning, public health) with due procedure, (iii) Requirements: Notice, hearing, alternative shelter/rehabilitation to minimize hardship, (b) Applications: (i) Slum rehabilitation: Policies balancing urban development with housing rights (e.g., PMAY-U), (ii) Street vendors: Street Vendors Act, 2014 protects livelihood while regulating public spaces, (iii) Displacement: Land acquisition, infrastructure projects require rehabilitation, resettlement per Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, (c) Proportionality test: Balances public interest (urban planning, infrastructure) vs. individual rights (livelihood, shelter): (i) Legitimate aim: Public purpose (sanitation, traffic, development), (ii) Rational connection: Eviction suitable to achieve aim, (iii) Necessity: Less restrictive alternatives considered (in-situ upgradation, regulated vending zones), (iv) Balancing: Benefits of development vs. hardship to displaced; rehabilitation minimizes harm, (d) Challenges: (i) Implementation gaps: Rehabilitation promises not fulfilled, inadequate alternative arrangements, (ii) Political will: Balancing development pressures with rights protection, (iii) Capacity: Resources for rehabilitation, monitoring compliance, (e) Illustrates calibrated rights balancing: Public interest in urban planning balanced with individual rights through procedural safeguards, rehabilitation; proportionality ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary.