2.2.

4 - Right to livelihood is subject to reasonable restrictions

Article 21 guarantees right to life which includes the right to livelihood, the deprivation thereof
must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.1 Right to life under Article 21 does
prohibit does protect livelihood, but its deprivation cannot be extended too far or projected or
stressed to the avocation, business or trade injurious to public interest or has insidious effect on
public morale or public order.2 In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by
the Government the courts should not become an approval authority. The policy of the State in
permitting diversion of food grains for manufacture of Alcohol affect the right of livelihood of
the citizens in as much as they are denied access to these food grains and consequently
the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not violate the Right to
livelihood. 3

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate means of livelihood
or work to the citizens.”4

The country has so far not found it feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a
fundamental right in the Constitution. This is because the country has so for not attained the
capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers any less fundamental to life. Thus, even
while giving the direction to the State to ensure the right to work, the constitution makers
thought it prudent not to do so without qualifying it.5 The violation of the right to livelihood is
required to be remedied. But the right to livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 cannot be
so widely construed which may result in defeating the purpose sought to be achieved by the
aforesaid article.6

2.3 - STATES ARE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH

Quite typical is the comment by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, “Godse was the physical assassin of
Gandhi but the state is the moral assassin of the Mahatma Gandhi if it indulges in the business of
corrupting the working class and the youth by persuading the citizenry to consume alcohol for

1
DTC v. Mazdoor Congress. 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600.
2
M.J. Shivani and others v. State of Karnataka and others, (1995) 6 SCC 289.
3
Bhimshakti Vivhar Manch & anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC Online Bom 372.
4
Olga Tellis v.Bombay Municipa Corp., (1985) 3 SCC 545.
5
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administartion, (1992) 4 SCC 99.
6
State of H.P. v. Mahendra Pal, (1999) 4 SCC 43.
the sake of contaminated revenue.”7 Alcohol-related problems account for over a fifth of hospital
admissions8 but are under recognized by primary care physicians. Alcohol misuse has been
implicated in over 20% of traumatic brain injuries9 and 60% of all injuries reporting to
emergency rooms.10 It has a disproportionately high association with deliberate self-harm11, high-
risk sexual behaviour, HIV infection12, tuberculosis13, oesophageal cancer14, liver disease and
duodenal ulcer.15 Articles 39(e), 47 and 48 – A of the Constitution of India collectively cast a
duty on the state to secure the health of the people and improve public health.16

In a number of pronouncements, the Supreme Court has insisted that Directive principles seek to
introduce the concept of welfare state in the country. Thus, we find the Supreme Court observing
in Paschim Bnaga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal17:

“The constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as
the state level. In a welfare state the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of
the people.”

The state shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people
and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State

7
V. R. Krishna Iyer , Liquor lobby and state policy, Indian Express, 26th January, 1985.
8
Sri, E. V., Raguram, R. & M. Srivastava, Alcohol problems in a general hospital—a prevalence study. Journal of
the Indian Medical Association, 95, 505–506, (1997).
9
G. Gururaj, Epidemiology of traumatic brain injuries: Indian scenario. Neurology Research, (2002).
10
Benegal, V. Gururaj, & P. G. Murthy, Project Report on a WHO Multi Centre Collaborative Project On
Establishing and Monitoring Alcohol’s Involvement in Casualties; 2000–01, (2002).
11
G. Gururaj, G. & M. Isaac, Epidemiology of Suicides in Bangalore City. NIMHANS Publication no. 43,
Bangalore: NIMHANS, (2001) at. 34.
12
P. S Chandra, V. A Krishna, V. Benegal, & J. Ramakrishna, High-risk sexual behaviour and sensation seeking
among heavy alcohol users. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 117, 88–92, (2003).
13
R. Rajeswari, , V. Chandrasekaran, M. Suhadev, S. Sivasubramaniam, G. Sudha, & G. Renu, Factors associated
with patient and health system delays in the diagnosis of tuberculosis in South India. International Journal of
Tuberculosis and Lung Disorders, (2002).
14
S. Chitra, L. Ashok, L. Anand, V. Srinivasan, & V. Jayanthi, Risk factors for esophageal cancer in Coimbatore,
southern India: a hospital-based case–control study. Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 23, 117–118, (2004).
15
A. Jain, S. Buddhiraja, B. Khurana, R. Singhal, D. Nair, P. Arora, et al., Risk factors for duodenal ulcer in north
India. Tropical Gastroenterology, 20, 36–39, (1999).
16
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 356.
17
(1996) 4 SCC 37.
shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of
intoxicating drugs and of drugs which are injurious to health.18

The Supreme Court has observed that if a law is made to further socio-economic justice, it is
prima facie reasonable and in public interest.19 The Supreme Court has emphasized in Vincent v.
Union of India20 that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. The court
observed;

“....maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as these are indispensable
to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these the building of the
society of which the constitution makers envisaged. Attending to public health, in our opinion,
therefore, is of high priority – perhaps the one at top.”

The role of government is crucial for addressing these challenges and achieving health equity.21 The
prohibition order has been enforced pursuant to the health welfare of the citizens of dilli Pradesh.

18
M/s Dabur Ltd. India & Anr. v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 264.
19
Kasturi Lal v. State of J&K, (1980) 4 SCC 1.
20
(1978) 2 SCC 165.
21
Role of Government in public health: Current Scenario in India and future scope, (Sep. 20, 2016, 6:33 a.m.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114612/