New Delhi Reiterating that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court on Feb 1, 2016 slammed the government for its "callous" attitude towards tackling the problem of unemployment in the country.
A bench of Justices V Gopal Gowda and Amitava Roy said that "there is absence of employment potentiality in the country on account of non-governance and non-implementation of the Constitutional philosophy of an egalitarian society, which provides opportunity to all individuals to lead a life of dignity".
The court passed the observation while hearing a plea of South Central Railway Caterers'Association, challenging the government's decision not to renew their licences for stalls on railway platforms. The court raised the question why the government is taking such harsh action against small vendors while allowing big private players to use railway properties without increasing their licence fee for years.
Observing that it is duty-bound to ensure that the rights of the downtrodden and minorities are not trampled upon, the bench directed the railways to allow the small vendors to carry on with their business. "The callous attitude and inaction on the part of the State in tackling the problem of rising unemployment is appalling.
The situation is made worse by the handing over public functions to private entrepreneurs, who then exploit the policies of the government," the bench said. "It is the duty of every welfare state to generate employment. Presently, millions of youths of the country are unemployed.
The right to livelihood is a part of right to life, as has been held in the case of Olga Tellis. A vast majority of the unemployed population of the country is susceptible to being exploited by the rich and the capitalists. It is the duty of the state, acting through its instrumentalities to ensure that no person in a vulnerable position is exploited," it said.
In July 1985, the apex court had expanded the scope of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution to include right to livelihood in a case filed by journalist Olga Tellis on behalf of pavement dwellers against Bombay Municipal Corporation. The court had said if the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the Constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.
The bench on Feb 1, also pointed out "non-governance of railway property in the past 67 years since Independence" and said that railway properties were being used by the private players and industries. "The periodical revision of licence fee in respect of such big operators has not been done by the railways.
Also, the policy of not renewing the licences of those persons who are completely dependent on self-earning from these small units and making them participate in a public competition is absolutely unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary," it said.
A bench of Justices V Gopal Gowda and Amitava Roy said that "there is absence of employment potentiality in the country on account of non-governance and non-implementation of the Constitutional philosophy of an egalitarian society, which provides opportunity to all individuals to lead a life of dignity".
The court passed the observation while hearing a plea of South Central Railway Caterers'Association, challenging the government's decision not to renew their licences for stalls on railway platforms. The court raised the question why the government is taking such harsh action against small vendors while allowing big private players to use railway properties without increasing their licence fee for years.
Observing that it is duty-bound to ensure that the rights of the downtrodden and minorities are not trampled upon, the bench directed the railways to allow the small vendors to carry on with their business. "The callous attitude and inaction on the part of the State in tackling the problem of rising unemployment is appalling.
The situation is made worse by the handing over public functions to private entrepreneurs, who then exploit the policies of the government," the bench said. "It is the duty of every welfare state to generate employment. Presently, millions of youths of the country are unemployed.
The right to livelihood is a part of right to life, as has been held in the case of Olga Tellis. A vast majority of the unemployed population of the country is susceptible to being exploited by the rich and the capitalists. It is the duty of the state, acting through its instrumentalities to ensure that no person in a vulnerable position is exploited," it said.
In July 1985, the apex court had expanded the scope of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution to include right to livelihood in a case filed by journalist Olga Tellis on behalf of pavement dwellers against Bombay Municipal Corporation. The court had said if the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the Constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.
The bench on Feb 1, also pointed out "non-governance of railway property in the past 67 years since Independence" and said that railway properties were being used by the private players and industries. "The periodical revision of licence fee in respect of such big operators has not been done by the railways.
Also, the policy of not renewing the licences of those persons who are completely dependent on self-earning from these small units and making them participate in a public competition is absolutely unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary," it said.