Common Order: (V.V.S. Rao, J.)

Introduction

1. This group of twelve writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order, as the subject matter is common to all. The controversy is with regard to the authority, jurisdiction and power of Hon’ble the Lok Ayukta (HTL, for brevity) in issuing directions to appoint certain persons in Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL) as part of Rehabilitation & Resettlement Package (RR Package). The controversy also centers round the method and manner adopted by Visakhapatnam District Administration in preparing the list of eligible candidates. Both these issues also involve the right of traditional fishermen to livelihood and the constitutional duty of this Court to protect such people from deprivation and infringement of their right to livelihood in the name of economic development.

Right to livelihood

2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) not only recognizes inalienable right to life and liberty (Article 3) and security of persons but also emphasizes right of every person to social security (Article 22), equal opportunity (Article 7) and right to work (Article 23). International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, by Article 6 recognises right to work, which includes right of every one to opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts and calls upon the State Parties to achieve the full realisation of this right by taking necessary economic, political and social measures.

3. In Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 = AIR 1986 SC 180, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court laid down that deprivation of livelihood amounts to deprivation of right to life and that a person cannot be deprived of livelihood without due process of law. The relevant placitum from the reported judgment reads as under.

The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because; no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.

(emphasis supplied)

4. In Narendra Kumar Chandla v State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 460 = AIR 1995 SC 519, the Supreme Court reiterated that Article 21 of Constitution of India protects right to livelihood as an integral facet of right to life. In State of H.P. v Raja Mahendra Pal (1999) 4 SCC 43 = AIR 1999 SC 1786 = 1999 (3) ALT 5.4 (DNSC), the content of right to livelihood was explained by the Supreme Court thus.

It is true that Article 21 of the Constitution is of the utmost importance, violation of which, as and when found, directly or indirectly, or even remotely, has to be looked upon with disfavour. The violation of the right to livelihood is required to be remedied. But the right to livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be so widely construed which may result in defeating the purpose sought to be achieved by the aforesaid article. It is also true that the right to livelihood woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document