Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Prasanta Kumar Rout, Orissa Law Reviews vs Government Of Orissa, Represented By ... on 27 September, 1994 cites

People'S Union For Democratic Rights ... vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982

In the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1473, Bhagwati.J. reiterated his earlier view and held that the rights and benefits conferred on the workmen employed by a contractor under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, were clearly meant to ensure basic human dignity to the workmen and if they are deprived of these that would clearly be violative of Art 21.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 436 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985

With this expanded notion of the expression "right to life" in Article 21 of the Constitution, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the power of the Court for issuing appropriate direction, when the inhabitants of a particular area apprehend danger to their existence from the vagaries of excess water rushing into the area on account of ill design or defect in construction of the protective bundhs. The right to shelter has been accepted as a part of the right to life. The right to dwell in pavements or in slums was accepted as a part of tight conferred by Article 21. in the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 180. in the case of M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 630, the apex Court made the following observations ' "Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted. to be three-food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That woutd take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being tor shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect-physical, mental and intellectual.........."
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 1065 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

M/S. Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimalal Totame And Others on 31 January, 1990

With this expanded notion of the expression "right to life" in Article 21 of the Constitution, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the power of the Court for issuing appropriate direction, when the inhabitants of a particular area apprehend danger to their existence from the vagaries of excess water rushing into the area on account of ill design or defect in construction of the protective bundhs. The right to shelter has been accepted as a part of the right to life. The right to dwell in pavements or in slums was accepted as a part of tight conferred by Article 21. in the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., AIR 1986 SC 180. in the case of M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 630, the apex Court made the following observations ' "Basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted. to be three-food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That woutd take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being tor shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body; for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect-physical, mental and intellectual.........."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 132 - R B Misra - Full Document

Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of ... on 13 January, 1981

"... Something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body, by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the cutting out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world. The deprivation not only of life, but of whatever God has given to everyone with life, for its growth and enjoyment, is prohibited by the provision in question, if its efficacy be not frittered away by judicial decision." in the case of Francis Coralia Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746, Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) held thus ;
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 341 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1