The right to livelihood under Article 21 cannot be extended to embrace all sorts of claims relating to legal or contractual rights.

1. - By these petitions one from Jail by way of letter and another duly filed in this Court, it is prayed that three convicts serving life term for offence of murder should be put in one jail so that their father can conveniently meet them. In reply to the notice issued on these petitions, it is submitted that such choice is not possible as keeping them in one jail is not proper. Taking into consideration the averments made in this petition, I see no reason to interfere as Article 21 has no application to the fact of this case. The observations of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal may also fully noted in the present case. The Supreme Court of India has observed as under :

"The Article 21 of the Constitution is of utmost importance, violation of which, as and when found, directly or indirectly, or even remotely, has to be looked 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 would include all attributes of life but the same cannot be extended to the extent that it may embrace or take within its ambit all sorts of claim relating to the legal or contractual rights of the parties completely ignoring the the person approaching the Court and the alleged violation of the said right. The High Court appears to have adopted a very generous; general and casual approach in applying the right to livelihood to the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. To interfere in the present case on the basis of Article 21 would be similar casual approach.

3. The convicts are kept in jail. There it no violation of the jail manual or any provisions of principles of natural justice or the convicts should not be ill-treated in any manner. Consequently, a prayer for maintaining a joint family of convicts in one jail cannot be entertained by this Court. To succumb all such prayers by expunging the provisions of Article 21 would be abusing the provisions of judicial activism and would treat a tool in the hand of convicts to seek transfer to their convenient to meet their relations. At that convenience, the whole purpose of punitive nature of punishment would be destroyed by such orders if made; the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution most certainly cannot be used for such purpose. The petitions are dismissed. The convicts, however, shall be at liberty to make any representation for transfer as is permissible under the jail manual.Writ Dismissed order accordingly.

*******