Meaning Of Right To Live With Human Dignity

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court gave Art. 21 a new meaning, holding that the right to life is not just a physical right, but also includes the right to live with dignity. In Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, the Court elaborated on the same point, saying:

 

“The right to live includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., 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, freely moving about and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of human self.” 

 

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India is another broad formulation of the theme of life to dignity. The Court gave Art. 21 an expanded interpretation, describing it as the "heart" of fundamental rights. Bhagwati J. made the following observation:

 

“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 condi¬tions 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.” 

 

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the non-payment of minimum wages to workers employed in various Asiad Projects in Delhi was a denial of their right to live with basic human dignity and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

According to Bhagwati J., the rights and benefits conferred on contractors' employees under various labour laws are clearly intended to ensure workers' basic human dignity. He held that the non-implementation of the laws by private contractors hired to build a building for the Asian Games in Delhi, as well as the State Authorities' failure to enforce the laws' provisions, were violations of the fundamental right of workers to live in dignity, as enshrined in Art. 21.

 

It was held in Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and decency, and that holding a beauty contest is repugnant to women's dignity and decency, and that it only violates Article 21 of the Constitution if it is grossly indecent, scurrilous, obscene, or intended for blackmailing. Under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Objectionable Performances Prohibition Act, 1956, the government has the authority to declare the contest an objectionable performance.

 

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provided for the payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re. 1 per month to a suspended Government Servant upon his conviction during the pendency of his appeal.

 

The Supreme Court's five-judge bench in Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.21 from the right to carry on any trade or business, a fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1) (g), and held that the right to carry on trade or business is not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. In the case of trade and business, Article 21 is not applicable.

 

The petitioners, who were hawkers operating off paved roads in Delhi, claimed that the Municipal authorities' refusal to allow them to carry on their livelihood business was a violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution. While hawkers have a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) to carry on trade or business of their choice, they do not have a right to do so in a specific location, according to the court. They cannot be allowed to do business on every street in the city. If the road isn't wide enough to accommodate the traffic, no hawking may be allowed at all, or only once a week.

 

Footpaths, streets, and roads are all public property that are intended for use by the general public and not for private use. The court did say, however, that affected people could apply for relocation, and that the relevant authorities would have to consider the request and issue orders. The two rights were too far apart to be connected.

 

The court noted that "in that case, the petitioners were very poor persons who had made pavements their homes, existing in the midst of filth and squalor, and that they had to stay on the pavements so that they could get odd jobs in the city," and that "in that case, the petitioners were very poor persons who had made pavements their homes, existing in the midst of filth and squalor, and that they had to stay on the pavements so that they could get odd jobs in It was not a case of starting a business selling articles after putting money into it."

 

In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the Court rejected the idea that the right to work can be considered a fundamental right under Art. 21's Right to Life.