Question

re - read excerpts from the judgement on the Olga Tellis vs Municipal Corperation case. Now write in your own words what the judges ment when they said that the Right to Livlihood was part of the Right to Life.​

Answer 1

Answer:

The judges in the Olga Tellis Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation said that the Right to Livelihood was part of Right to life as no person can live without the means of living. The Right of Life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Life means something more than mere animal existence. This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right to Life.

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.

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