Question

from the judgment on the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case, what did judges mean when they said that the Right to Livelihood
was part of the Right to Life?​

Answer 1

Answer:

In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges said that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. ... 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.

Answer 2

$\huge{\boxed{\mathcal\pink{\fcolorbox{red}{purple}{Solution:-}}}}$

In the case, Ogla Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, the judges concluded that the Right to Livelihood was an integral part of Right to Life. The people living in slums had small jobs nearby which supported their life. If they're evicted from their slums (home) they would also lose their jobs. This would rob them of their livelihood and hence affect their lives. Under article 21, the Right to life was considered the most fundamental right of an individual. It was believed that the Right to Life did not just mean the existence of an individual but would also require the means to sustain life. It referred to the means of livelihood because no person could survive without them. It includes basic amenities such as food, shelter, healthcare clothes, healthcare, etc.

$\huge{\boxed{\mathcal\green{\fcolorbox{blue}{red}{Thanks}}}}$