lIVELIHOOD OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

Can we approach to court for the non availability of food , ration or other livelihood due to economic crisis in covid19 from the state as his duty and obligation .even the directive principles of state police is non enforceable by court under article 37. the question is that a middle class man or below seek help for the livelihood from the government or court ?  #LAWINROUTINE #Lawinroutinelink of law in routine fb page

Let’s consider it…..

In covid19 global pandemic , we are suffering from many issues of livelihood and dailylife like raw food , money to avail services and facilities , lockdown , earning etc.

What is livelihood..

A person's livelihood refers to their "means of securing the basic necessities of life". Livelihood is defined as a set of activities essential to everyday life that are conducted over one's live span. Such activities could include securing water, food, fodder, medicine, shelter, clothing , education . but in modern livelihood it includes job also.
Because by job a person earn his wage to avail his service or lifestyle.

What is directive principles of state policy ?

DPSP are provided in constitution under part 4 from article 36-51. Dpsp is an obligation upon state to avail the principles laid down in preamble or natural justice like secularism , socialist gandhian and liberal principle for the welfare of all citizen. But according to article 37 , dpsp are not enforceable in court.

why directive principles of state policy not enforceable by law ?

Because at the time of establishment of our constitution . our framers of constitution realized that our economy is a new economy and to make dpsp enforceable would lead to burden upon government to provide all facilities. That’s why upon this reason at the current date dpsp are not enforceable by court.

‘Right to livelihood’

In olga tellis vs municipal corporation of Bombay 1985 supreme court

In this case supreme court held that unenumerated right ‘right to life’ in article 21.

Facts of the case….

This case is a representative petiotion by journalists and NGO named ”people union for civil liberties ” . Food stalls and living tents or unproper houses was forcibly evicted by eviction order of Bombay municipal corporation which encroach the footpaths . Later on two journalist added as a plaintiff in this case. Olga tellis is one of the journalist of that. eviction of their shelters was performed in the initial days of rainy season without prior notice.

Petitioner contention….

1. Right to life also includes right to livelihood in article 21.

2. Act of Bombay municipal corporation is ultravires , beyond the jurisdiction.

3. Eviction order doesn’t maintainable because there is no prior notice served by the Bombay muncipal corporation.

4. Without planning to setup vendors or street side living person at a particular place is not justifiable or unjust.

5. Violation of right to privacy as concluded by honourable supreme court in KHARAK SINGH VS STATE OF UP 1964. Forcibly entering into tents of vendors by BMC officials are violative opf right to privacy.

Respondent contention………

1. Prior oral information of eviction that encroachment will be evicted , is stated by officials

2. Section 312 , 313 and 314 OF BMC ACT does not violate the constitution.

3. "Section 313 - Prohibition of deposit, etc., of things in streets.
(1) No person shall, except with the written permission of the Commissioner, - place or deposit upon any street or upon any open channel drain or well in any streets (or in any public place) any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale or other thing so as to form an obstruction thereto or encroachment thereon.

(2) " "Section 314 - Power to remove without notice anything erected deposited or hawked in contravention of Section 312,313

The Commissioner may, without notice, cause to be removed -
(a) any wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or other structure or fixture which shall be erected or set up in or any street, or upon or over any open channel, drain, well or tank contrary to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 312, after the same comes into force in the city or in the suburbs, after the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Municipal (Extension of Limits) Act, 1950 or in the extended suburbs after the date of the coming into force of the Bombay Municipal Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA (Amendment) Act, 1956;

(b) any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale, board or shelf, or any other thing whatever placed, deposited, projected, attached, or suspended in, upon, from or to any place in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 313;
(c) any article whatsoever hawked or exposed for sale in any public place or in any public street in contravention of the provisions of section 313A and any vehicle, package, box, board, shelf or any other thing in or on which such article is placed or kept for the purpose of sale."

4. section 314 allows BMC to evict any encroachment without any prior order.

5. They also contravene section. and 115 of Bombay police act.

Section 111 ……. No person shall wilfully push, press, hustle or obstruct any passenger in a street or public place or by violent movements, menacing gestures, wanton personal annoyance, screaming, shouting, wilfully frightening horses or cattle or otherwise disturb the public peace or other.

Section 115…… Committing Nuisance in or Near Street, Etc. (c) spit or throw any dust, ashes, refuse or rubbish so as to cause annoyance to any passerby.]

6. Right to livelihood not for immoral activities like gambling nd prostitution , which is usually be done in encroachment zone.

Supreme court verdict……

1. Sc held that right to life shall include right to livelihood .

2. Without prior full fledged planning to setup the evicted persons in a rainy days is aviolation of article 21 and 14.

3. Without providing a proper place for vendors to earn wage by hawking street foods etc , eviction of that is violation of article 14 , 21 and 19[1][g].

4. Section 312 , 313 , 314 0f BMC ACT is not a violative of constitution.

5. Eviction of encroachment puts half population in danger.

Conclusion……….

After reading the above mentioned case we can conclude right to livelihood is a fundamental right according to unenumerated right under article 21. Which makes right to livelihood enforceable . it is the duty and obligation upon state to insure ration and food avaialabilty and work. Thus Right to livelihood is enforceable by court.

In the covid19 pandemic state is bound to provide us basic necessities. The issue is that government provide food and ration to only below poverty line card holder . but it is the duty of government to look over the non below poverty line card holder. Mr kejriwal , chief minister of delhi provide facilities of ration to only below poverty line card holder. Basic necessities like food and eatable items are indispensible for all persons irrespective of their income. Delhi govt. Issues temporary ration card, but the site of registration for temporary ration card not working or available.

Government have to follow the correct strategy to distribute eatable items not only to distribute items to person only according to below poverty line card holder

Thank you..