Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar (1983), the Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is part of Article 21, but State can regulate livelihood in public interest with due procedure, illustrating balance between individual rights and ______ welfare.
- individual
- collective
- corporate
- international
Answer: collective
Board of Trustees (1983) right to livelihood and regulation: (a) Context: Challenge to termination of port workers' employment; issue of right to livelihood under Article 21, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Right to livelihood is part of right to life under Article 21; no person can live without means of living, (ii) BUT State can regulate livelihood in public interest with due procedure: Fair hearing, reasonable classification, proportionality, (iii) Balance: Individual right to livelihood vs. collective welfare (public interest, administrative efficiency), (c) Applications: (i) Employment termination: Must follow fair procedure, natural justice; arbitrary termination violates Article 21, (ii) Public interest regulation: State can regulate professions, occupations for public health, safety, morality with due procedure, (iii) Proportionality test: Restrictions on livelihood must be rationally connected to legitimate aim, necessary, balanced, (d) Subsequent developments: (i) Olga Tellis (1985): Applied livelihood principle to pavement dwellers' eviction, requiring rehabilitation, (ii) MGNREGA: Operationalizes right to work/livelihood through statutory guarantee of employment, (e) Rationale: (i) Dignity: Livelihood essential for human dignity, autonomy, self-respect, (ii) Public interest: State can regulate livelihood to protect public health, safety, welfare, (iii) Procedural fairness: Due procedure ensures regulations not arbitrary, discriminatory, (f) Illustrates calibrated rights balancing: Right to livelihood balanced with collective welfare through procedural safeguards, proportionality; individual rights protected while enabling legitimate state regulation in public interest.