Re-read excerpts from the judgment on the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case. Now write in your own words what the judges
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.
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case portrays the plight of lakhs of persons who live on pavements and in slums in the city of Bombay. They constitute nearly half the population of the city. These men and women came to Court to ask for a judgment that they cannot be evicted from their shelters without being offered alternative accommodation. They rely for their rights on Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life except according to the procedure established by law.
They do not contend that they have a right to live on the pavements. Their contention is that they have a right to live, a right which cannot be exercised without the means of livelihood. They have no option but to flock to big cities like Bombay, which provide the means of bare subsistence. They only choose a pavement or a slum which is nearest to their place of work. Their plea is that the right to life is misleading without a right to the protection of the means by which alone life can be lived.
-
What is “Public interest Litigation”?
3 years ago
-
Mention the branches of the Legal system.
3 years ago
-
What is the ‘appellate system’?
3 years ago
-
What is the structure of the judicial system of India?
3 years ago
-
Write a brief note on the independence of the judiciary.
3 years ago
- 321 Forums
- 27.3 K Topics
- 53.8 K Posts
- 1 Online
- 12.4 K Members