Re-read excerpts from the judgment on the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case.
Now write in your own words what the judges meant when they said that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life.
Re-read excerpts from the judgment on the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case.
Now write in your own words what the judges meant when they said that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life.
In Olga
Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges said that the Right to
Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. They stated that life does not merely
imply an animal existence; it cannot be lived without a means of living, that
is, "the means of livelihood". The judges conferred that eviction
from a pavement or slum is deprivation of means of livelihood for the poor who
cannot afford to live anywhere else. They take up small jobs in surrounding
areas and to lose their pavement or slum would lead to loss of a job resulting
in loss of a means of livelihood. Consequently, leading to "deprivation of
life". This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right
to Life.
In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges said that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. They stated that life does not merely imply an animal existence; it cannot be lived without a means of living, that is, "the means of livelihood". The judges conferred that eviction from a pavement or slum is deprivation of means of livelihood for the poor who cannot afford to live anywhere else. They take up small jobs in surrounding areas and to lose their pavement or slum would lead to loss of a job resulting in loss of a means of livelihood. Consequently, leading to "deprivation of life". This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right to Life.
