Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Analysis:

16. The determination of point No.(i) is contingent upon the outcome of point No.(ii). Accordingly, this Court proceeds to consider point No.(ii) first.

Regarding point No.(ii):

17. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life, which serves as an inexhaustible source of several other fundamental rights.

This Article has a wide and expansive application. The judiciary has interpreted the right to life to include the right to live with human dignity. The bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, and a congenial, non-congested environment suitable for human habitation are inextricably intertwined with the right to life.

18. It is the bounden duty of the State to provide the aforesaid essential facilities. When the right to life is examined in conjunction with the State's fundamental obligations, it becomes evident that the enactment of the Act was intended not only to safeguard the right to life but also to enable the State to discharge its fundamental duty in that regard.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Chameli Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(1996) 2 SCC 549], while analysing the scope of Article

20. In view of the exposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is the fundamental duty of the State to safeguard the right to life by ensuring the provision of adequate living space, safe and decent housing structures, clean and hygienic surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation, and essential civic amenities such as roads and other infrastructural facilities.

21. In the facts of the present case more fully discussed in the succeeding paragraphs, it is evident that, in furtherance of the object of the Act and the constitutional mandate, a notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued, declaring the area in question as a slum. Since the slum came to exist on private land, and in order to guarantee the right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, a notification under Section 17 of the Act was issued for acquisition of the said land. However, the acquisition proceedings were subsequently dropped on the ground of financial considerations. When it is the bounden duty of the State to provide essential civic amenities such as safe and adequate housing, sanitation, electricity, water, and clean surroundings, financial implications are inevitable and cannot be cited as a justification to abdicate such responsibility. Once it is demonstrated before the Court that the State has failed to protect the right to life, the only consideration for the Court is the enforcement and protection of that fundamental right. It hardly needs reiteration that the Constitutional Courts are the guardians of the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is wholly impermissible for the State to

- 31 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15865 HC-KAR deny the enforcement of the right to life under Article 21 on the pretext that its protection would entail a financial burden on the State exchequer.

22. Once this Court concludes that there is a violation of the right to life attributable to the inaction or omission of the State, it is incumbent upon the State to take appropriate measures to protect and restore such right, regardless of the financial implications. As noted in the minutes of the meeting referred and extracted in this judgment, the proposal for de-notification was based on untenable grounds, such as the absence of prior approval from the Finance Department before the issuance of the acquisition notification and the anticipated burden on the exchequer. This Court is unable to appreciate such excuses, particularly when a violation of the right to life under Article 21 has been established.