Article 21: Right to Livelihood and Shelter

Right to livelihood

Right to livelihood is one of the facet of Right to Life as it was said that human life is not merely an animal existence, right to life cannot be granted if the person does not have the means to live it or enjoy it. As Right to life is developed through judicial pronouncements and every facet increases the scope of Article 21. Word life as explained is difficult to define but attempts have been made to define it. A person’s right to do an activity should not be so restricted that it renders the life valueless.[1] So, when a person is forced to evict, when a person is denied shelter, a person living in an unclean environment, etc. all these create fear against the enjoyment of the life and it would deprive the life valueless, meaningless. The basic activity required to have a life is taken away therefore Right to Livelihood forms an important part of Right to Life because it ensures the idea of dignified life to an individual. Right it livelihood will not be complete without effective elements in it. So, considering only Right to Livelihood the scope is broad enough to include other rights which provide for livelihood like Right to Shelter, Right to rehabilitation, etc.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[2]

The case runs around the evacuation of the street/ slum dwellers from the city of Bombay as per Section 314 of Bombay Municipal and Corporation Act. With the help, they filed a petition under Article 32 stating that it is violative of their fundamental rights as per Article 19 and 21. It was held that Right to Life includes right to livelihood. Court said that the extent of right to life is far-reaching. One important facet of Article 21 is right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If a person is deprived of right to livelihood it is the easiest way to deprived him of his right to life. Such deprivation makes the life of the person difficult to enjoy or impossible to live except when the deprivation is according to procedure established by law.

The court referred to the judgment of Douglas, J. in Baksey v. Board of Regents [347 US 442, 472 : 98 L Ed 829 (1954)] , in which the learned Judge said:

“The right to work, I had assumed was the most precious liberty that man possesses. Man has indeed, as much right to work as he has to live, to be free and to own property. To work means to eat. It also means to live.

The right to live and the right to work are integrated and inter-dependant and, therefore, if a person is deprived of his job as a result of his eviction from a slum or a pavement, his very right to life is put in jeopardy. It is urged that the economic compulsions under which these persons are forced to live in slums or on pavements impart to their occupation the character of a fundamental right.”

Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India[3]

The court said that right to life includes protection of limb against mutilation and physical injuries, and also said that living does not means only breathing but also includes right to livelihood. And this right is available to the person in all its dimensions till the last breath against all injuries to head, heart and mind or the lungs affecting the citizen or his next generation or of genetic disorders.

Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress[4]

The court said that,

“The right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them.”

Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assns. v. Union of India[5]

In this case it was held that was held that the right to health and medical aid of workers during service and thereafter, is a fundamental right of the workers. Right to livelihood would mean better standards of living in hygienic conditions at the workplace and leisure.

Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC 99 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 805 : (1992) 21 ATC 386

In this case it was said that, “Article 21 which seeks to protect persons against the deprivation of their life except according to procedure established by law. This 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 far not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any the less fundamental to life. Advisedly, therefore, it has been placed in the Chapter on Directive Principles, Article 41 of which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same “within the limits of its economic capacity and development”. 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.”

Jiwan Dass v. LIC, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 694

In this case it was said that the owner has rights to use his property in his own way, profitable in its use and occupation. The same way public authority is entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as a commercial venture. And the Right of livelihood cannot be extended to the area of commercial operation.

Ramesh Kumar Rajaymohan v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 64 : (1998) 3 Mah LJ 122 : (1998) 3 Bom CR 702 : AIR 1999 Bom 86

In this case the judgement of Mohan, J. (concurring) in Unni Krishnan’s case, (1993) 1 SCC 645 was mentioned and was said that State government is in an obligation to provide for education system and not providing do is against right to Livelihood.

Right to Shelter

Traditionally the basic human needs were recognized into three categories- food clothing and shelter. Right to food, Right to decent environment, Right to shelter, Right to clothing all forms a part to Right to Life. There is a difference between the needs of an animal and the needs of a human being that must be protected by the constitution.[6] Right to shelter is a Fundamental Right. Right to shelter under one roof is the basic necessity of human’s life.[7] Right to livelihood is mentioned in various multilateral treaties. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 laid down that State parties to the Covenant recognise “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.”. The Preamble to the Indian Constitution, gives the assurance to every citizen of social and economic justice and equity of status and of opportunity and dignity of person so as to fasten fraternity among all sections of society in an integrated Bharat.

Article 39(b) as in Constitution of India provides for distribution of ownership and control of the material resources in the community in such a way to promote welfare of the people by securing social and economic justice. Article 46 provides for that the State to promote with special care social, economic and educational interests of the weaker sections of the society. Right to social and economic justice could be provided with providing Right to shelter, as it becomes an inseparable component for meaningful right to life. Right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence assured in Article 19(1)(e) and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. [8]As right to shelter is a fundamental right it becomes the duty of the state to provide for better housing facilities for poor. For that purpose the land needs to be acquired.[9]

Whenever we talk about right to shelter there are few problems like forced eviction, violation of pro poor houing provisions, impact of globalisation and urban poor that needs to be addressed.[10]

New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 1 SCC 731

The contention raised was that land acquisition violates people of their Right to Shelter and thus right to dignity or dignified life. State with a view to serve public purpose is entitled to acquire the land by exercising its power of eminent domain and the LAO is empowered under Section 23 of the Act to determine the compensation to the land acquired. He is deprived of it according to law. If the above contentions are considered then no acquisition will be possible as the owners interest will always be a concern. In certain exception cases, it becomes the duty of the state to provide for alternate land.

Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549

In this case the idea of Right to Shelter was moved further, that Right to shelter does not only includes a roof over the head but to have an proper infrastructure to necessary to enable them to live. For eg. adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to his daily avocation.

In this case it was also said that Right to Shelter acts as an essential requirement to Right to Live. In a democratic society one is entitled to have permanent shelter to equip oneself physically, mentally and intellectually. Oneself has the right to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself into a cultured being.

​

[1] 2015 SCC OnLine Can SC 1 : [2015] 1 SCR 331 : 2015 SCC 5.

[2] (1985) 3 SCC 545.

[3] (1990) 1 SCC 613.

[4] 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213.

[5] (2006) 8 SCC 399 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 2002.

[6] Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520.

[7] Balbir Singh v. M.C.D., (1985) 1 SCC 167 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 35.

[8] U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 456; State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy, (1995) 5 SCC.

[9] State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy, (1995) 5 SCC.

[10] Right to Housing under Article 21 in light of Judicial Pronouncements Preeti Singh , International Journal of Law ISSN: 2455-2194 Impact Factor: RJIF 5.12 www.lawjournals.org Volume 3; Issue 6; November 2017; Page No. 115-119