Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is integral to right to life under Article 21 because:
- Livelihood is a fundamental right separate from Article 21
- No person can live without the means of living
- Livelihood is covered under Directive Principles only
- Livelihood is a privilege granted by State
Answer: No person can live without the means of living
Right to livelihood jurisprudence: (a) Olga Tellis (Pavement Dwellers Case): Right to livelihood integral to Article 21; eviction without alternative arrangement violates right to life, (b) Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar (1983): Livelihood not absolute; State can regulate in public interest with due procedure, (c) Operationalization: MGNREGA (right to work), rehabilitation policies for displaced persons, skill development programs. Balance: Right to livelihood subject to reasonable restrictions for public purpose with fair procedure and rehabilitation.