The State has an obligation to protect the fundamental right of life, including the right to livelihood, and to compensate victims of calamities caused by acts of commission and omission.

( 1 ) CARELESS conduct and casual approach adopted by the respondent-State in the matter of fundamental right dealing with life and safety forced the petitioners, belonging to a noble profession of advocates to put off their robes and stand before us as litigant seeking justice for the legal heirs of the dead and compensation for the injured. The deaths and injuries are admitted to have been caused on account of the collapse of a building constructed by the builders by using substandard material besides ignoring the structural guidelines and protections. The rolling tears and the soar wailing cries of the victims of the tragedy did not affect the mighty and careless State but did touch the tender hearts of the petitioners, who initiated this action in public interest with prayer for granting appropriate relief to the needy and deserving. This Court has been moved to take appropriate action by the issuance of requisite directions in furtherance of its obligation to protect the fundamental right of life, personal liberty and safety of the people in the country. It is submitted that the State has failed in its obligation to protect the life and safety of the people as enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Right to life, as guaranteed by Art. 21 has been acknowledged to be more than survival or animal existence. Such right includes the right to live with human dignity ensuring all aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. It has cast an obligation upon the State to ensure such right by taking effective legislative and administrative actions as and when required. As the State is alleged to have failed in its obligations as cast upon it under Part III of the Constitution of India, this Constitutional Court which is under oath to protect such rights of the citizens has been approached for relief without caring for the technicalities of law and wrangles of procedure.

( 2 ) ). 118 people are admitted to have died beneath the debris of a multi-storeyed building under construction which collapsed on 12th September 1983 at 3. 13 p. m. The aforesaid building was being constructed by one Ganga Ram abutting Subedar Chatram Road and Ananthashram Road, a busy and commercial area in the city of Bangalore. Besides 118 deaths caused on account of the collapse of the building another 67 persons were seriously injured. The Government of Karnataka ordered a judicial enquiry vide Notification No. HUD 281 MNY 83, dated 8-11-1983 by constituting three members committee under S. 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the following terms of reference : (I) The cause of the collapse of the Hotel Building under construction at Gopal Film Theatre Complex in Bangalore City on 12-9-1983; (II) Whether the necessary licences under the prevailing Statutes/rules/regulations had been obtained before the commencement of the construction; (III) Whether the concerned licensing authorities had exercised sufficient care and examined the various aspects connected with the issue of the licence before the issue of the same; (IV) Whether construction had been made as per the sanctioned plan or whether there were any deviation; (V) to fix responsibility regarding lapses on the part of officials or other persons connected with licensing, supervision and construction; (VI) Precautionary measures to be taken to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies in future; and (VII) To examine any other question relevant to the issue and make suitable recommendations. The Commission submitted its report to the Government on 26th July, 1985. According to the information received by the petitioners, the Commission found that the cause of collapse of the hotel building under construction was the cumulative effect of the following : (I) Gross under-design by the structural Engineer (II) Poor co-ordination and lack of proper supervision by the Architect (III) Poor quality materials brought by the owner, and (IV) Poor qual