In OLGA TELLIS v. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AIR 1986 SC 180, the Supreme Court held that:

1. In Olga Tellis (1986), the Supreme Court considered the eviction of pavement dwellers in Bombay (Mumbai). 2. The Court held: 'The right to live includes the right to livelihood. No person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.' 3. The Court directed: pavement dwellers cannot be evicted without notice and consideration of alternative accommodation. 4. This expanded Article 21 to include SOCIO-ECONOMIC rights. 5. Hence option B is correct. _Source: UDHR 1948 / ICCPR 1966 / ICESCR 1966 / CAT 1984 / CEDAW 1979 / CRC 1989 / PHRA 1993 / Constitution Part III — Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180_