Topic
The right to livelihood in Indian law is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing the ability to earn a living without arbitrary state interference.
Gauhati HC held that on a cyber complaint of a suspicious transaction, a bank may only lien that sum and let the account holder use the rest. It protects traders’ livelihood under Article 21 by barring arbitrary full-account freezes.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that seizure of a boat under APMMC Rules without following prescribed procedure infringes constitutional rights to equality, livelihood, and personal liberty. The court directed release of the boat on deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakh, reinforcing that environmental regulations must comply with fundamental rights and natural justice.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that cancelling a street vendor’s license solely because their original supplier stopped business violates the right to livelihood under the Street Vendors Act, 2014. Municipal authorities must permit vendors to switch to new goods within four weeks, recognizing vending as a dynamic livelihood, not a static contractual arrangement tied to a single supplier.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that denying character certificates solely due to pending petty criminal cases-especially familial disputes-is an arbitrary infringement of the right to livelihood and due process. Authorities must issue certificates in prescribed format, disclosing only case details, not imposing blanket rejections that cripple employment and travel rights.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that police cannot merely register complaints against interference with legally licensed aquaculture - they are constitutionally obligated to provide proactive security to safeguard livelihoods protected under Article 19(1)(g) and the right to life under Article 21. This sets a binding precedent for state authorities to treat lawful fishing and aquaculture as essential economic activity warranting preventive law enforcement.
Punjab & Haryana HC rules that restricting passport renewal to one year due to delayed criminal proceedings violates the right to livelihood under Article 21, especially when the accused has not misused bail and has strong ties in India. The court emphasized that procedural inertia cannot override fundamental rights.
The Karnataka High Court struck down a police-directed bank account freeze that lacked any specification of the alleged crime, amount involved, or factual nexus to the account holder, affirming that such coercive measures must satisfy the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. This ruling reinforces that financial freezing is not a default investigative tool and protects small business owners from arbitrary state action under Article 21 and 300A.
Bombay High Court rules that prior conviction in a CRPF attack case and alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba links provide reasonable grounds to deny a Police Clearance Certificate for a Public Service Vehicle badge, prioritizing national security over the right to livelihood. The judgment reaffirms that constitutional rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public safety and order.
Allahabad HC rules banks cannot freeze accounts based on suspicion alone without following PMLA procedures. The judgment reaffirms that arbitrary freezing breaches constitutional rights to livelihood and natural justice, impacting businesses and individuals reliant on banking access.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that banks cannot freeze accounts based solely on law enforcement directions without a Magistrate’s order under BNSS Section 107 or an FIR naming the account holder. The court emphasized proportionality, holding that blanket freezes disproportionately harm innocent individuals, especially when no direct involvement in alleged offenses is established.
A 76-year-old widow’s railway platform stall license was restored after the Jharkhand High Court ruled that termination based on unsubstantiated claims and retroactive financial demands violates natural justice and the Supreme Court’s S.C.R. Caterers precedent. This sets a critical precedent for elderly and marginalized licensees dependent on railway vending rights, reinforcing that livelihood cannot be extinguished without fair procedure.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that prolonged administrative inaction on land sale applications by Collectors violates the right to livelihood under Article 21, mandating a 60-day deadline for decision-making. This binds revenue authorities across the state and offers immediate relief to small landholders facing financial distress due to bureaucratic delay.
Telangana High Court holds that retaining original academic certificates as security for unpaid fees is illegal, arbitrary, and violates Articles 14 (equality) and 300A (right to property). The court directed immediate return of documents within one week, reinforcing that educational institutions cannot use coercive measures to recover dues.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that law enforcement agencies cannot direct banks to freeze accounts without a magistrate’s order under BNSS Section 107, even when a small sum is flagged as suspicious. This sets a critical precedent protecting the right to livelihood and ensures financial restrictions are proportionate, reasoned, and legally authorized-not merely administrative.
MP High Court Gwalior reinforces the statutory mandate under Sections 10-B and 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, directing Labour Courts to conclude proceedings within three months. The ruling underscores that prolonged delays prejudice workmen’s right to livelihood and defeat the Act’s beneficial purpose, setting a binding precedent for expeditious adjudication.