RIGHT TO LIFE VIS-A-VIS RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD
RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE COURSE LABOUR LAW-II FOR THE DEGREE B.B.A
LL.B (Hons.)

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

MRS. PALLAVI SHANKAR NIHARIKA BHATI

(FACULTY OF LABOUR LAW-II) ROLL NO.- 1839

5th SEMESTER

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYANAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA
800001
SEPTEMBER, 2019

1
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE
I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“RIGHT TO LIFE VIS-A-VIS RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD” submitted at Chanakya National
Law University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of
MRS. PALLAVI SHANKAR. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or
diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Niharika Bhati

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

September, 2019

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Mrs.
Pallavi Shankar for her exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this thesis. The blessing, help and guidance given by her time to time
shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I am obliged to staff members of Chanakya National Law University, for the valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation
during the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my parents, brother, sisters and friends for their constant
encouragement without which this assignment would not be possible.

Thank you!

3
 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The research will facilitate better understanding of the following:-

 The Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 Whether Right to Life includes Right to Livelihood.

 Implications and implementation of the Right to Life and Livelihood under Labour
Legislation.

HYPOTHESIS
Right to Life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India Includes Right to Livelihood.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method of writing followed in the course of the research project is primarily analytical.
Doctrinal method of research has been used to complete this project. The researcher has followed
a uniform mode of citation.

SOURCES OF DATA

PRIMARY- Constitution of India, 1950

SECONDARY- Books, journals and internet.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A comprehensive review of literature is an essential part of any scientific investigation. It is
necessary for the researcher to acquaint herself with the work done in the past which induces
insight into the problem for further work.

STYLE OF WRITING
The researcher will be using both descriptive and analytical styles of writing.

4
 MODE OF CITATION
The researcher will be using a uniform mode of citation throughout this paper.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Though the researcher will try her level best not to leave any stone unturned in doing this project
work to highlight various aspects relating to the topic, but the topic is so dynamic field of law,
the researcher will sight with some of unavoidable limitations. The limitations encountered by
the researcher were the paucity of time.

5
 CHAPTERIZATION

CHAPTER 1. Meaning and Concept Of Article 21- Right to Life.

CHAPTER 2. Right to Life Includes Right to Livelihood.

CHAPTER 3. Right to Life and Livelihood With Respect To Labour Legislation.

CHAPTER 4. Related Case Laws.

CHAPTER 5. Conclusion.

Bibliography

6
 1. MEANING AND CONCEPT OF ARTICLE 21-RIGHT TO
LIFE.

‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.’ The right to life is undoubtedly
the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend
on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. As human rights can only attach to living
beings, one might expect the right to life itself to be in some sense primary, since none of the
other rights would have any value or utility without it. There would have been no Fundamental
Rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense.

Article 21 reads as:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure
established by law.”1

According to Bhagwati, J., Article 21 “embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance

in a democratic society.” Iyer, J., has characterized Article 21 as “the procedural magna
carta protective of life and liberty”.

Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by
the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the
preview of Article 21.

Article 21 secures two rights:

1) Right to life, and

2) Right to personal liberty.

The Article prohibits the deprivation of the above rights except according to a procedure
established by law. Article 21 corresponds to the Magna Carta of 1215, the Fifth Amendment to

1
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.

7
the American Constitution, Article 40(4) of the Constitution of Eire 1937, and Article XXXI
of the Constitution of Japan, 1946.2

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” ‘Life’ in Article 21 of
the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal
existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right
to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution free air, etc.

Right to life is fundamental to our very existence without which we cannot live as a human being
and includes all those aspects of life, which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and
worth living. It is the only article in the Constitution that has received the widest possible
interpretation. Under the canopy of Article 21, so many rights have found shelter, growth, and
nourishment. Thus, the bare necessities, minimum and basic requirements that are essential and
unavoidable for a person is the core concept of the right to life.

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, the Supreme Court quoted and held that:

By the term “life” as here used something more is meant 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 amputation of an armored leg or
the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the
soul communicates with the outer world.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration4, the Supreme Court reiterated with the approval the
above observations and held that the “right to life” included the right to lead a healthy life so as
to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right
to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man’s life. It
includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health.

2
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-right-to-life-and-personal-liberty/
3
AIR 1963 SC 1295
4
AIR 1978 SC 1675

8
INFERRED RIGHTS:-

The composite or inferred rights are those rights of the citizens which are not explicitly provided
by the Constitution but have been derived by liberal interpretation of the various provisions of
the Constitution5. Some of the inferred rights from Art 21 are:

 Right To Live with Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21 and
held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the right to
live with human dignity. Another broad formulation of the theme of life to dignity is to be found
in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 7 . Characterizing Art. 21 as the heart of
fundamental rights, the Court gave it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed:

“It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country… to live with human dignity free from
exploitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath
from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and
Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength
of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and
facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity,
educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.”

“These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with
human dignity and no State neither the Central Government nor any State Government-has the
right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”

 Right to Education

Right to education is considered as third eye of man without which no one can lead good, decent
and dignified life. Earlier right to education was a part of directive principles of state policy8.
however as per the changing needs of society Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State Of

5
https://www.brainyias.com/article-21-of-indian-constitution/
6
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
7
1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
8
Art. 51 A of the Indian Constitution.

9
Karnataka 9 and Unni Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh 10 rule that right to education is
fundamental right because it directly flows from right to life.

 Right Against Sexual Harassment

In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan11 the Supreme Court has declared sexual harassment of a
working woman at her work place as amounting to violation of gender equality and right to life
and liberty which is clear violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21.

 Right to Health

In State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla12, it has been held that- the right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical care.

The Supreme Court in Vincent v. Union of India13, emphasized that a healthy body is the very
foundation of all human activities.Art.47, a Directive Principle of State Policy in this regard lays
stress note on the improvement of public health and prohibition of drugs injurious to health as
one of the primary duties of the state14.

 Right to Livelihood

Right to livelihood is borne out of right to life as no person can live without the means of living
that is livelihood. If right to livelihood is not treated as part and parcel of right to life, the easiest
way of depriving a person of his right life would be deprived him of his means of livelihood.

The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation15 held that the concept of
“right to life and personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the
“right to live with dignity” which in turn includes right to livelihood.

9
AIR 1992 SC 1858
10
AIR 1993 SC 2178
11
AIR 1997 SC 3011
12
AIR (1997) SC 1225
13
1987 AIR 990 : 1987 SCR (2) 468
14
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-right-to-life-and-personal-
liberty/#_edn43
15
(1985) 3 SCC 5

10
 2. RIGHT TO LIFE INCLUDES RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD.

Livelihood is ‘means of living, subsistence’ as given in the concise Oxford Dictionary. It would
therefore be something necessary for a man to provide for his living and subsistence. It is only
such activity or means which is essential to earn one’s living for subsistence that would
constitute the right to livelihood.

The directive principles ensure that the State 16 shall strive to promote the welfare of the
people by securing a social order in which social, economic and political justice is
animated/informed in all institutions of life and Article 39(a) ensures that the state shall aim for
securing right to an adequate means of livelihood for all citizens, both men and women as well
as equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The State should work to prevent
concentration of wealth and means of production in a few hands, and try to ensure that
ownership and control of the material resources is distributed to best serve the common good.17

It was right to livelihood in this sense that was stated to be a constituent of the right to life as
guaranteed by Article 21 by the Supreme Court in Olga Telis V Bombay Municipal
Corporation18 . It was held that right to livelihood is a component of right to life guaranteed by
the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners the slum dwellers was that the right to life
which is guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, if they are evicted from their
slums and pavement dwelling their eviction is tantamount to deprivation of their life and is hence
unconstitutional.

The court held that: 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 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
livelihood because no person can live without the means of living that is, the means of

16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_Principles#cite_note-State-1
17
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india right-to-life-and-personal
liberty/#_ednref44
18
A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180

11
livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the Constitutional right to life, the
easiest way 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 of livelihood is not regarded as a
part of the right to life. That which alone makes it possible to life, leave aside what makes life
livable must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. The court held that right
to earn livelihood is a component of the right to life19.

In Sodan Singh V New Delhi Municipal Committee20 which was a case of street hawker. The
contention that eviction of street hawker would deprive the right guaranteed under article 21 of
the Constitution was rejected by the court. It held that there is difference between Olga Tellis 21
case and this case. In Olga Tellis the issue involved was removing of huts of ‘Pavement
dwellers’ from pavement and public places but not right to carry on any trade or business. The
court held that eviction of the street traders will not amount to deprivation of right under article
21.

In a significant judgment in D.K. Yadav V J.M.V. Industries22 the Supreme Court has held that
the right to life enshrined under article 21 includes the right to livelihood and therefore
termination of the service of a worker without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing is
unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The Supreme Court held that the right to life enshrined under Article
21 includes right to livelihood and therefore before terminating the service of employee or
workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity should be given to him to explain his
case.The Procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the requirement of
Article 14 that is it must be right just and fair and not arbitrary fanciful or oppressive. 23In this
way the right to livelihood which is the Directive Principle was given status of Fundamental
Rights.
19
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/43740/11/11_chapter%206.pdf
20
A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1988
21
A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180
22
1993 (3) S.C.C. 258
23
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1105/10/Judicial-Interpretation-in-Right-to-Life-and-Personal-
Liberty-Under-Article-21-of-Indian-Constitution

12
 3. RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIVELIHOOD WITH RESPECT
TO LABOUR LEGISLATION.

Right to life, includes right to the means of livelihood which make it possible for a person to
live—The sweep of the right to life, conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. 'Life'
means something more than mere animal existence. 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 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.24 There is thus a close nexus between life and the means of
livelihood and as such 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 of life. In Maneka Gandhi’s
case the Court gave a new dimension to Article 21. It held that the right to 'live' is not merely
confined to physical existence but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human
dignity.

The Articles 21, 23, 24, 38, 39, 39-A, 41, 42, 43, 43-A and 47 of the Constitution, are calculated
to give an idea of the conditions under which labour can be had for work and also of the
responsibility of the Government, both Central and State, towards the labour to secure for them
social order and living wages, keeping with the economic and political conditions of the country
and dignity of the nation.

Right to life and Right to Livelihood have been dealt with and established by the judiciary in
context of labour legislation in various cases. It has been established that there are various facets
of the Right to life which are essential in the administration of labour laws which if not ensured
to the working class or labourers working in the industries, factories etc., will result in gross
miscarriage of justice. Therefore the courts have established in a number of cases that Right to

24
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/181/Constitutional-Protection-on-Labour-Laws.html

13
Livelihood is an essential part of the Right to Life. Also, it includes within itself various other
rights which are important to establish an egalitarian social order in the society and to form the
basis of progressive stability in the society and human progress.

 Right Against Sexual Harassment - In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan 25 the Supreme

Court has declared sexual harassment of a working woman at her work place as amounting
to violation of gender equality and right to life and liberty which is clear violation of Articles
14, 15 and 21.In the landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in the absence of enacted law to
provide for effective enforcement of basic human rights of gender equality and guarantee
against sexual harassment laid down the following guidelines:

1. All employers or persons in charge of workplace whether in the public or private sector should
take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment. Without prejudice to the generality of this
obligation they should take the following steps:

A. Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at the workplace should be

notified, published and circulated in appropriate ways.

B. The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies relating to conduct and
discipline should include rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for
appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender.

C. As regards private employers steps should be taken to include the aforesaid prohibitions in the
standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

D. Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure, health, and
hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at workplaces and
no employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that she is disadvantaged in
connection with her employment.

2. Where such conduct amounts to specific offenses under I.P.C, or under any other law, the
employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint with the
appropriate authority.

25
AIR 1997 SC 3011

14
3. The victims of Sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of perpetrator or
their own transfer.

 Right to Health and Humane Conditions of Work

Article 38(1) lays down the foundation for human rights and enjoins the states to promote the
welfare of the people by securing and protecting it effectively as it may, a social order in which
justice, social economic and political shall inform all the institution of the national life. Article
42 mandates that the state shall make provision, statutory or executive to secure just and human
condition of work.

In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India 26, the Supreme Court laid
down that:

“Social justice which is a device to ensure life to be meaningful and livable with human dignity
requires the State to provide to workmen facilities and opportunities to reach at least minimum
standard of health, economic security and civilized living. The health and strength of worker, the
court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer
facets of life violating Art. 21.”

 Right to Clean Environment

The “Right to Life” under Article 21 means a life of dignity to live in a proper environment free
from the dangers of diseases and infection. Maintenance of health, preservation of the sanitation
and environment have been held to fall within the purview of Article 21 as it adversely affects
the life of the citizens and it amounts to slow poisoning and reducing the life of the citizens
because of the hazards created if not checked. The same right has been recognized and
provisions has been made in this regard in various labour laws to secure to the workmen a safe,
clean and healthy environment.

Also, in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan27 the Court struck down a provision of Bombay
Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provided for payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance
of Re. 1 per month to a suspended Government Servant upon his conviction during the pendency

26
AIR (1995) 922, (1995) SCC (3) 42
27
(1983) 3 SCC 387

15
of his appeal as unconstitutional on the ground that it was violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 28 popularly known as the
'pavement dwellers case' a five judge bench of the Court has finally ruled that the word 'life' in
Article 21 includes the 'right to livelihood' also. The court said :"It does not mean merely that life
cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of 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 livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the
constitutional right to life, the easiest ways of depriving a person of his right to life would be to
deprive him of his means of livelihood. In view of the fact that Articles 39((a).and 41 require the
State to secure to the citizen an adequate means of livelihood and the right to work, it would be
sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life."

In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries,29 The Supreme Court has held that the right to life enshrined
under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and therefore termination of the service of a
worker without giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing in unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The
procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14
and so it must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In the instant case,
the appellant was removed from service. By the management of the M/s. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
on the ground that he had willfully absented from duty continuously for more than 8 days
without leave or prior permission from the management arid, therefore, "deemed to have left the
service of the company under clause 12(2)(iv) of the Certified Standing Order. But the appellant
contended that despite his reporting to duty every day he was not allowed to join duty without
assigning any reason. The Labour Court upheld the termination of the appellant from service as
legal. The Supreme Court, held that the right to life enshrined under Article 21 includes right to
livelihood and 'therefore' before terminating the service of an employee or workman fair play
requires that a reasonable opportunity should be given to him to explain his case . The procedure
prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the requirement of Article 14, that is, it
must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In short, it must be in
conformity of the rules of natural justice, Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with

28
AIR 1986 SC 180.
29
1993) 3 SCC 258.

16
means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to
animal existence. The Court set aside the Labour Court award and ordered his reinstatement with
50 percent back wages.
The principles contained in Articles 39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the
understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If there is an
obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the right
to work, it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the
right to life. The State may not, by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means
of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood
except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as
offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.30

30
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/181/Constitutional-Protection-on-Labour-Laws.html

17
 4. RELATED CASE LAWS

The most significant case in the interpretation of Right to Livelihood within the meaning of
Right to Life is the Oga Tellis case which has been explained in the above chapters. Apart from
that there are a lot many other cases where the Supreme Court has reiterated its decision given in
Olga Tellis case and held that Right to Life includes Right to Livelihood.

Justice Bhagwati in his landmark decision in Francis Corlie’s case laid down that the Right to
life include the right to live with the human dignity and that goes along with it namely 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 with fellow human beings. Of course the
magnitude the contents of the component of this right would depend upon the extent of the
economic development of this country but it must in any view of the matter include the right to
basic necessities of life.

Right to livelihood was more clearly explained by Calcutta High Court in Md. Farooq V State of
West Bengal.31 The right to livelihood as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution is only right
to earn such livelihood as is necessary for the subsistence of persons and the deprivation of
which would threaten their existence. This right cannot be equated with the right to earn to the
extent of augmenting one’s opulence. If a person having sufficient means to live is being
deprived of some of his earning capacity that would not be an interference with a right to
livelihood as may attract the application of Article 21 of the Constitution, as it is not likely to
have any impact on his right to life.

In K. Sai Reddy V D.E.E. Irrigation32, the A.P. High Court held that Government authority by
taking over possession of petitioner’s agricultural land without recourse to law. The petitioners
were deprived of property for more than six years and where by it has violated Article 21 of the
Constitution which includes right to livelihood. The court directed the government to pay Rs.
30,000/- per acre by way of compensation for unlawful deprivation of property.

In this way the right to livelihood which is the Directive Principle was given states of
Fundamental Rights.
31
A.I.R. 1995 Cal. 98
32
A.I.R. 1995 A.P. 208

18
 5. CONCLUSION

The most respected public institution in India is the Supreme Court, respected by the elite and
the illiterate alike. If the Court has come increasingly effective in its role as the final arbiter of
justice, it is because of the confidence the common man has placed in it. The Court has no army
at its command. It does not hold any purse strings. Its strength lies largely in the command it has
over the hearts and minds of the public and the manner in which it can influence and mould
public opinion. As stated above in several cases, the Supreme Court of India played a significant
role while interpreting Article 21 of the constitution. In this way the Supreme Court has
expanded the liabilities, duties and responsibilities of the State and its authorities thorough its
interpretative and activist judicial process. It is quite possible that in course of time, the Court
may possibly be able to imply some more rights for the people in interpreting Article 21 of the
Constitution because the concept of dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 seems to be
inexhaustible in range and scope.

The Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are harmoniously interpreted to make the law
a social engineering to provide flesh and blood to the dry bones of law. The Directives would
serve the court as a beacon light to interpretation. The fundamental rights are rightful means to
the end. Social Justice, therefore, forms the basis of progressive stability in the society and
human progress.

Livelihood is ‘means of living, subsistence’. It would therefore be something necessary for a

man to provide for his living and subsistence. It is only such activity or means which is essential
to earn one’s living for subsistence that would constitute the right to livelihood. It was right to
livelihood in this sense that was stated to be a constituent of the right to life as guaranteed by
Article 21 by the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis V Bombay Municipal Corporation. It was held
that right to livelihood is a component of right to life guaranteed by the Constitution. In this way
Right to Life was held to include Right to Livelihood.

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 BOOKS:-

1. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, 42nd Ed. (2005)
2. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Wadhwa, 5th Ed. (2003)

 WEBSITES:-

1. http://rshrc.nic.in
2. http://www.legalserviceindia.com
3. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com
4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/52481658/Article-21-of-the-Constitution-of-India
5. http://www.academia.edu
6. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/181/Constitutional-Protection-on-Labour-
Laws.html
7. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1105/10/Judicial-Interpretation-in-Right-to-
Life-and-Personal-Liberty-Under-Article-21-of-Indian-Constitution
8. http://en.jurispedia.org

20