The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to livelihood, and this right can be enforced against private individuals or entities that perform public duties.

HANSARIA, J.

( 1 ) WORKING women of India. What is the extent of right conferred on them by Article 21 of the Constitution is the main point for our consideration in this case? The expanded meaning being given to the word 'life' as embodied in this Article has required this consideration. Maneka Gandhi's case, AIR 1978 SC 597, paved the way for this journey which is still continuing. The other legal point we shall have to examine is whether they can enforce their right under the aforesaid Article against the opposite parties by approaching a writ Court.

( 2 ) ARTICLE 21 has been described by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) in Francis Coralie v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 as "most fundamental of Fundamental Rights". (page 750 ). At page 752, it was stated that the "fundamental right to life. . . . . . . . . . is the most precious human right and. . . . . . . . . . . . forms the arc of all other rights". In this connection, we may also note the following observations made by Pathak, C. J. in para 7 of Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653 :-"to any civilised society, there can be no attributes more important than the life and personal liberty of its members. That is evident from the paramount position given by the Courts to Art. 21 of the Constitution. These twin attributes enjoy a fundamental ascendancy over all other attributes of the political and social order, and consequently, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are more sensitive to them than to the other attributes of daily existence. The deprivation of personal liberty and the threat of the deprivation of life by the action of the State is in most civilised societies regarded seriously and recourse, either under express constitutional provision or through legislative enactment is provided to the judicial organ. " as fundamental rights guaranteed by other articles of the Constitution can be enjoyed by a person or a citizen only when he is alive, so, we say with respect, that what has been observed above is a truism.

( 3 ) THE word 'life' in Article 21 has, however, not been understood only in the sense of protection of limbs. In the aforesaid case, Bhagwati, J. himself stated in paragraph 7 that right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life, such as, adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head among some other named things. In paragraph 5 it had been earlier stated that right to life, being the arc of all other rights, must be interpreted in a broad and expansive spirit so as to invest it with significance and vitality, which may endure for years and enhance the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person. Article 21 protects not only every limb, but every faculty through which life is enjoyed. So, it is obvious that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 cannot be restricted to mere animal existence. This was so stated first by a Constitution Bench in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295, after referring to Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 US 113. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675, another Constitution Bench accepted this position, Reference may also be made in this connection to some observations of Desai, J. in Board of Trustees v. Dilip Kumar, AIR 1983 SC 109, in paragraph 13 of which it as stated that the expression 'life' used in Article 21 has a wider connotation than animal existence or a continued drudgery to life. In that case the right of an employee to be represented by a lawyer was being examined, and it was stated that where "the outcome of a departmental enquiry is likely to adversely affect the reputation or livelihood of a person, some of the finer graces of human civilisation, which make life worth living, would be jeopardised and the same could be put in jeopardy only by law which inheres fair procedures. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) st