Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Mr. Bhattacharyya has said that the law is well settled to the effect, that a writ petition under Group IX could only be maintainable, in case of protection of rights, life and liberty pursuant to a decree and/or order passed by a civil Court. Unless the same, such a writ petition would not be maintainable. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, here in this case there is no decree of the civil Court, determining the right title interest of the parties with respect to the disputed land. Hence, this petition would not be maintainable at the threshold, he says. On this he has relied on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 (P.R. Murlidharan & Ors. vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar & Ors. )

18. The right to life, as enshrined under the Constitution of India as fundamental right of a citizen, has by now, received well expanded definition and meaning, as expounded by the Constitutional Courts, time and again. One can look way back in 1978, in Maneka Gandhi's case [Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI reported in (1978 1 SCC 248)]. The Supreme Court had held there that the right to life and personal liberty is not confined to mere animal existence, but it also includes the right to lead a meaningful life. The maxim the Courts have observed as to how a person's right to life may be protected, is to live with dignity as the greatest creation of God. These rights have been crucial for the realization of a just and equitable society. In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi reported in (1981) 1 SCC 608, the Supreme Court has further observed:

"The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self."

19. Relevant portion of the judgment of Umed Ram Sharma (supra) would also benefit discussions in this case. That may be quoted, as herein bellow;

"11. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution and in the facts of this case read in conjunction with Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the Constitution every person has right under Article 19(1)(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence of life but the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself. These propositions are well settled. We accept the proposition that there should be road for communication in reasonable conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of that right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution.