Back
2010 (8) Supreme 619
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Centre for Environment & Food Security — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.645 of 2007
Decided on : 16-12-2010
Facts of the Case :
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 was enacted to provide for enhancement of livelihood security of households in the rural areas of the country by providing at least hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteered to do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Object and reasons of enactment demonstrated that objective of legislation was to enhance the livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas and the Government including the State Government was required to prepare a scheme to give effect to the guarantee proposed under legislation. Writ petition was filed by Centre for Environment and Food Security for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents Union of India and all the States for formation of appropriate schemes and proper utilization of funds allocated for the said purpose and to achieve object of the Act.The petitioners claimed to have carried out a survey, copy of which was annexed as ‘Annexure-A’ to the Writ Petition showing that neither the schemes framed under the provisions of Act nor the provisions of the Act were being properly implemented. The funds allocated were also not being properly utilized. In fact, the allegation was that funds were being siphoned by corrupt officials and officers, thereby, denying lakhs of poor people their fundamental right to livelihood.
Findings of the Court :
Evidence on record showed that all was not well in State of Orissa with regard to implementation of the schemes framed under the provisions of the Act. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India as well as the States, the allegations in regard to irregularities, diversion of funds, improper maintenance of records and non-implementation of schemes had been vaguely denied without providing any specific data based explanation in response Thereto. The enquiries which were initiated years back had not culminated into any final orders or issuance of directions in regard to proper implementation of the schemes. This clearly showed default on part of the Union of India as well as the States in discharging their statutory obligation of achieving the public purpose that was sought to be achieved under the provisions of the Act. A statutory obligation under the provisions of the Act, i.e. right to livelihood which had also been declared by the courts as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution was being frustrated by the very functionaries who were responsible for proper and effective implementation of the Act. In view of this, Necessary Directions were issued for strict compliance by the concerned authorities.
Result : Ordered Accordingly
ORDER
1. The framers of the Constitution, in the Preamble to the Constitution, guaranteed to secure its citizens justice, social, economic and political as well as equality of status and opportunity but the ‘right to employment’ was not incorporated in Part III of the Constitution as a Fundamental Right. By judicial pronouncements, the courts expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and included various facets of life as rights protected under the said Article despite the fact that they had not been incorporated by specific language in Part III by the framers of the Constitution. Judgments of this Court in the cases of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,1 [(1985) 3 SCC 545] and Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana,2 [(1994) 4 SCC 460] expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that ‘right to livelihood’ is integral part of the ‘right to life’. Taking cognizance of the stark reality that majority of the Indian population (about 76%) is residing in rural areas and unemployment was the greatest challenge before any State or the Central Government, the Parliament decided to enact a law to provide rural employment to restricted persons as stated in such law. This resulted in enactment of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’). As per the preamble of the Act, it was an enactment to provide for enhancement of livelihood security of households in the rural areas of the country by providing at least hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. Even the object and reasons of this enactment demonstrate that objective of the legislation is to enhance the livelihood security of the poor households in rural areas and the Government including the State Government was required to prepare a scheme to give effect to the guarantee proposed under the legislation. Another paramount feature of the Act was that if an eligible applicant is not provided work as per the provisions of this legislation within the prescribed time limit, it will be obligatory on the part of the State Government to pay unemployment allowance at the prescribed rate. This Act was to extend to whole of India and was to come into force on such date as the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette may appoint. This Act was later amended by Amending Act 46 of 2009 (w.e.f. October 2, 2009) and titled as ‘Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005’.
2. A Constitution Bench of this court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi,3 [(2006) 4 SCC 1], while dealing with the question that the persons appointed under the provisions of the Act would be entitled to regular appointment, rejected the claim of the Respondents for regularisation and made certain significant observations which read as under :
“51. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the backdoor. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that pol
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
