Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The apex court also stated that reasonable restriction imposed should be independently
examined and that they cannot negate te requirement of part III16
The state is under obligation under Art 21 of the constitution to secure for the citizen an
adequate means of livelihood.17 The Supreme court stated that that the right to livelihood is
included in the Right to life.18 In the present case it is clearly visible that the state is taking
away the right to livelihood from the canteen owners in the university bereft of any
reasonable objective behind the Act as has been explained above in the previous contention.
Hence the council would like humbly beg the honourable court to strike down this Act as it is
against the Right to livelihood.
It is also humbly submitted that Article 21 confers a right to choose under right to privacy
which is included in right to life, this has been explained in various cases by the Supreme
Court.19 The Supreme court in the case of National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India
stated that all those aspects which go to make a citizens life meaningful and it protects
persona autonomy and right of privacy.20 In the case of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh21 that the right
to choose ones food is a part of right of privacy and reiterating the same principle the
Bombay High Court in the Bombay Beef Ban case stated that what one eats is his personal
affair and is a part of his right to privacy, and such act should not affect the personal dietary
choses at large.22 Based on the following principles established above the council would like
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v. UOI, (1981) 1 SCC 246 ; Pathumma v State of
Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771
17 Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204.
18 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545
19 Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204; Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, (1978)1 SCC
248; R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 1 SCC 496 ; Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re
(2012): SCC, SC, 5,
20 (2014) 5 SCC 438
21
22
to humbly submit that the right to life of the students of the university is being infringed
because they have the right to eat whatever kind of food they want and the state cannot
infringe their such right.