Supreme Court: Demolition Of House For Crime Of One Person Amounts To 'Collective Punishment' On Entire Family Which Is Impermissible

VIII. PERMISSIBILITY OF THE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

87. Right to life is a fundamental right. As already discussed herein above, with the expanded scope of law, the right to shelter has also been considered as one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. In one structure, various people or maybe even a few families could reside. The question that is required to be considered is, as to whether if only one of the residents of such a structure is an Accused or convicted in a crime, could the authorities be permitted to demolish the entire structure thereby removing the shelter from the heads of the persons who are not directly or indirectly related with the commission of crime.

88. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as recognized in our country that a person is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty. In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an Accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure. In our considered view, our constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same.

89. In this respect, it will be apposite to refer to the following observations of Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors.   MANU/SC/0369/1979 : 1979:INSC:244 : (1980) 2 SCC 593:

111. The cardinal distinction in our punitive jurisprudence between a commission of enquiry and a court of adjudication, between the cumulative causes of a calamity and the specific guilt of a particular person, is that speaking generally, we have rejected, as a nation, the theory of community guilt and collective punishment and instead that no man shall be punished except for his own guilt. Its reflection in the disciplinary jurisdiction is that no worker shall be dismissed save on proof of his individual delinquency. Blanket attainder of a bulk of citizens on any vicarious theory for the gross sins of some only, is easy to apply but obnoxious in principle.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022,

Decided On: 13.11.2024

In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1211/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

The Right to Die: An Evolving Discourse in Indian Jurisprudence

The right to die in India has undergone significant evolution, particularly through landmark judgments by the Supreme Court that interpret the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right encompasses the notion of dying with dignity, especially for terminally ill patients. This article explores the legal framework surrounding the right to die and highlights key Supreme Court judgments that have shaped this critical discourse.

 Constitutional Basis

 Article 21

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Over time, the interpretation of this article has expanded to include not just the right to live but also the right to die with dignity.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The fundamental Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does include right to food and other basic necessities.

It is significant to note that though the Constitution of India does not explicitly provide for Right to food, the fundamental Right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution does include Right to live with human dignity and right to food and other basic necessities. The Article 47 of the Constitution also provides that the State shall regard the raising of level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. {Para 5}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1103 OF 2019

ANUN DHAWAN & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Author: BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Dated: FEBRUARY 22nd, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 136.

Print Page

Water and electricity supply form a part of right to life under Article 21 of Constitution : Himachal Pradesh HC

 The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner, as an interim measure, be allowed the basic amenities of water and electricity. There is no gain in saying that potable water or electricity are integral part of Right to Life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These are basic necessities for human being and can well be termed as essentials of human rights. If the title dispute, owing to the prescription of right to appeal under the Statute remains pending for considerable long period, we see no reason to deny the petitioner's family the basic amenities of water and electricity, subject to their payment of requisite charges. It goes without saying that in the event of petitioner's having failed to prove his right to retain the possession, both facilities will also go alongwith the residential house.

In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Surya Kant, C.J and Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

CWP No. 2454 of 2018

Decided on October 22, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1495

Print Page

Whether state is liable to pay compensation to accused if he suffers due to false implication?

If appellants look in hindsight then the distance covered
by them between this period is been full of painful memories,
remorse and agony. At this juncture, this Court feels that
valuable period of 12 years of appellants have been consumed
at the altar of false implication due to defective investigation
and casually conducted trial with poor appreciation of evidence
by the trial Court.
23. The Right to Life is a Fundamental Right enshrined
under the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution, in the most
coveted chapter (Chapter III of Fundamental Rights) of the
Constitution coupled with the enlightenment displayed by the
Preamble of our Constitution wherein Securing Justice to
Citizens has been placed at the top of all virtues and being a
democratic and welfare State, it is incumbent upon the State to
take care of its citizens with motherly tenderness specially,
when a citizen is severely bruised by the organs of the State.
Therefore, this Court finds the instant case, a fit case for grant
of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac only) each, to both
the appellants to be granted as compensation for the injustice
inflicted over them by way of false implication. Our criminal
Juris prudence gives more stress over avoiding of false
implication of an innocent to the extent where hundred guilty
may go scot- free. The spirit behind the same is very pious.
Even otherwise, by one case of false implication of an
innocent, rule of law loses one exponent (supporter) and a
rebel with defiance towards rule of law is ready. Poor
investigation with tainted prosecution is perfect recipe for such
eventuality.
24. Although, no such provision exists in the Cr.P.C. for
compensating the accused but certainly State cannot wriggle
out from its constitutional and tortious liability, in the present
set of facts. Fundamental right of a person cannot be
sacrificed at the altar of mis-governance or at the whims or
because of poor investigation. State Government would be at
liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officers/
investigation officers, if appropriate authority decides so, after
giving opportunity of hearing to them and if their casualness
and negligence are proved in an enquiry.

Law laid down:
(I) If because of poor investigation and tainted
prosecution, the accused suffers and it is apparent that he is
innocent then he deserves compensation from the State under
Right to Life.
(II) Right to Life is a Fundamental Right enshrined
under Chapter III of the Constitution of India and Preamble of
our Constitution gives priority to secure Justice to citizen at the
top of all virtues, therefore, it is incumbent upon the State to
take care of its citizens, when a citizen is severely bruised by
the organs of the State therefore, appellants deserve
compensation because of poor investigation and tainted
prosecution.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
 DIVISION BENCH
(S.A. Dharmadhikari & Anand Pathak, J.J.)
 Criminal Appeal No.812/2008

Durga @ Raja Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

(Pronounced on 06th day of July, 2018)

Print Page

Supreme Court;Right to live with dignity and right to livelihood is part of right to life

Keeping in view the evolving concept of social
justice, we allow the members of respondents who
are the licensees to continue their petty
business, especially in the 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 the opportunity to all
individuals to lead a life of dignity. The right
to life with dignity has been interpreted to be a
part of right to life by this Court in the case of
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union
Territory of Delhi & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 608 , as under:
“We think that the right to life
includes the right to live with human
dignity and all that goes along with
it, namely, the bare necessaries of
life such as adequate nutrition,
clothing and shelter and facilities for
reading, writing and expressing
one-self in diverse forms, freely
moving about and mixing and commingling
with fellow human beings. Of course,
the magnitude and content of the
components of this right would depend
upon the extent of the economic

development of the country, but it
must, in any view of the matter,
include the right to the basic
necessities of life and also the right
to carry on such functions and
activities as constitute the bare
minimum expression of the human-self.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION
 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.618-620 OF 2016
(Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.9921-9923 of 2014)
 SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & ORS. ………APPELLANTS
Vs.
 S.C.R. CATERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE
 STALLS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. ………RESPONDENTS
Dated;January 29, 2016

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Print Page

‘Right to Life includes Right to Livelihood” re-iterated by Supreme court

The respondent and his family members have
been suffering for more than four decades as the
source of their livelihood has been arbitrarily
deprived by the appellant. Thereby, the Right to
Liberty and Livelihood guaranteed under Articles
19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been
denied to the respondent by the appellant as
held in the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors
(1985)3 SCC 545, wherein
this Court has held thus:
“32. As we have stated while summing up the
petitioners’ case, the main plank of their
argument is that the right to life which is
guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right
to livelihood and since, they will be
deprived of their livelihood if they are
evicted from their slum and pavement
dwellings, their eviction is tantamount to
deprivation of their life and is hence
unconstitutional. For purposes of argument,
we will assume the factual correctness of
the premise that if the petitioners are
evicted from their dwellings, they will be


deprived of their livelihood. Upon that
assumption, the question which we have to
consider is whether the right to life
includes the right to livelihood. We see
only one answer to that question, namely,
that it does. The sweep of the right to
life conferred by Article 21 is wide and
far-reaching. It does not mean merely that
life cannot be extinguished or taken away
as, for example, by the imposition and
execution of the death sentence, except
according to procedure established by law.
That is but one aspect of the right to
life. An equally important facet of that
right is the right to livelihood because,
no person can live without the means of
living, that is, the means of livelihood.
If the right to livelihood is not treated
as a part of the constitutional right to
life, the easiest way of depriving a person
of his right to life would be to deprive
him of his means of livelihood to the point
of abrogation. Such deprivation would not
only denude the life of its effective
content and meaningfulness but it would
make life impossible to live. And yet, such
deprivation would not have to be in
accordance with the procedure established
by law, if the right to livelihood is not
regarded as a part of the right to life.
That, which alone makes it possible to
live, leave aside what makes life livable,
must be deemed to be an integral component
of the right to life. Deprive a person of
his right to livelihood and you shall have
deprived him of his life. Indeed, that
explains the massive migration of the rural
population to big cities. They migrate
because they have no means of livelihood in
the villages. The motive force which
propels their desertion of their hearths
and homes in the village is the struggle
for survival, that is, the struggle for
life. So unimpeachable is the evidence of
the nexus between life and the means of
livelihood. They have to eat to live: only
a handful can afford the luxury of living
to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only
if they have the means of livelihood. That
is the context in which it was said by
 Douglas, J. in Baksey that the right to
work is the most precious liberty that man
possesses. It is the most precious liberty
because, it sustains and enables a man to
live and the right to life is a precious
freedom. “Life”, as observed by Field, J.
 in Munn v. Illinois means something more
than mere animal existence and the
inhibition against the deprivation of life
extends to all those limits and faculties
by which life is enjoyed. This observation
was quoted with approval by this Court in
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.”
(emphasis laid down by this Court)

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2381 OF 2007
STATE OF U.P ………APPELLANT
Vs.
CHARAN SINGH ………RESPONDENT
Citation;(2015)8 SCC150

Print Page