Question

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.​

Answer 1

$\huge\boxed{\fcolorbox{black}{pink}{Answer}}</p><p>$

In the Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges stated that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. They stated that life does not merely means an animal existence, it cannot be lived without the means of livelihood. In the above mentioned case, people were poor and lived in slums they had small jobs and no other place to live. For them, the eviction of their slum means deprivation of their livelihood which consequently means deprivation of life. This is how judges connected right to life to the basic requirements of any livelihood i.e. Food, Clothes and shelter.

Answer 2

Explanation:

In the Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges stated that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. They stated that life does not merely means an animal existence, it cannot be lived without the means of livelihood. In the above mentioned case, people were poor and lived in slums they had small jobs and no other place to live. For them, the eviction of their slum means deprivation of their livelihood which consequently means deprivation of life. This is how judges connected right to life to the basic requirements of any livelihood i.e. Food, Clothes and shelter.

$\bf\ Hey \ mate \ plz \ mark \ me \ as \ the \ brainliest$