Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

38. Within the reach of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, Article 21 guarantees a right to livelihood. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.,5 Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as follows with respect to the unimpeachable connection between the right to life and the right to livelihood:-

"32... The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to (1985) 3 SCC 545 Patna High Court CWJC No.7857 of 2020 dt.18-10-2022 livelihood is not treated as a 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. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.

Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities.... They have to eat to live: only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by Douglas, J. in Baksey [347 US 442, 472 : 98 L Ed 829 (1954)] that the right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. "Life", as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois [(1877) 94 US 113] means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. This observation was quoted with approval by this Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332: (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329]."

40. In Olga Tellis5, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held the right to livelihood as an essential part of right to life, although in a different context- the holding in this regard would apply across all cases. Here, delay on part of the State has denied the enjoyment of these rights to the people of Village Tarabigha and similar 25 villages in Block-Katrisarai in the District Nawadah.

41. The right to life and livelihood are, as is clear from the above, connected in inextricable terms and the State is constitutionally bound to ensure that such right of livelihood is not denuded, save and except in accordance with procedure established by law. Well, by no extension or stretch of imagination can it be said that the non-supply of water in a canal causing wide spread issues to those dependent on it, is in accordance with law.