- News>
- Newspapers
The right to live is non-negotiable: Indian Express
New Delhi, June 14: Two recent verdicts of the Supreme Court are unified by one strong message. In one, the Supreme Court directed that Bihar state government to deposit with the high court Rs 50 crore towards disbursement of unpaid salaries of the thousands employed with the State Corporation.
New Delhi, June 14: Two recent verdicts of the Supreme Court are unified by one strong message. In one, the Supreme Court directed that Bihar state government to deposit with the high court Rs 50 crore towards disbursement of unpaid salaries of the thousands employed with the State Corporation.
This was close on the heels of another judgement which directed the Centre to expand and double the potential of the Sampoorna Grain Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) for the summer months which could imply doubling grain allocation to 10 million tonnes, and also an increase in the cash allocation to states by at least Rs 5000 crore.
The first case gave meaningful content to the fundamental right to livelihood. The second has sought to make operational the fundamental right to food. Together they sent out the message that when it comes to fundamental rights the argument of paucity of funds holds no water. It is important to see this in its right context. Most fundamental social and economic rights—like right to livelihood, shelter, food and access to water—have failed to work for the poor in the past because of the feeble nature of their legal obligation.
Talking of suffering, the prevalent drought conditions have brought enormous suffering to people because of water scarcity. People are fighting, dying, seeing their livestock perish, and even losing the chance to marry. The higher courts over the last five years, or so, in separate verdicts have talked about the right to clean water as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet a closer look on all those judgments would show that when it comes to operative directions, the strong sounding right takes softer forms because “limited availability of water resources as well as financial resources could not be ignored” — as an Andhra high court ruled last year. Article 21, at least in this area, has been more a living example of legal escapism and less an instrument of legal activism.
Examples can be multiplied to show that while an activist interpretation of the Constitution has led to a vibrant rights regime, is still remains for most part a regime without remedies. The phenomenon of rights without remedies provoked a UN Committee to say that breaches of economic, social and cultural rights, in the face of “the magnitude, severity and constancy of deprivation have provoked attitudes of resignation, feelings of helplessness and compassion fatigue”. Even assuming that intentions to honour these rights are in place, the omnipresent argument of lack of resources reduces the right into a programme that is subject to “progressive realisation”. That explains why we have failed to entrench these social and economic rights. There should be no good reason for this because once it is understood that every right has to have a remedy, the perceived distinction between rights ensuring freedom from want and freedom from fear becomes artificial. This is where the common lesson provided by the two recent interventions of the Supreme Court make sense and deserves to be taken further.
If the realist had pangs of compassion fatigue reading stories of unpaid salaries last year, the optimist observer today should feel rescued—as remedy replaces fatigue—by the Supreme Court and see in the judgement the end of a beginning! It is time to realise that fundamental rights, particularly in the Indian context, where judicial activism continues to be on high, have the capacity to influence and reorder the most basic political choices confronting society. The argument of realising the social and economic rights ‘progressively’ cannot be used by the government to say that its hand are tied when it comes to giving effect to its ‘minimum core obligation’ in respect of these rights. The fundamental rights that have been interpreted under Article 21 of the Constitution can only be seen as representing these core obligations. The unpaid salaries case in Bihar should be seen as a ringing reminder that if aspects of fundamental social and economic development are ignored, they can be enforced.
The rights language alone can enforce a cash-strapped, unwilling government to divert money to a cause it never paid even lip service too. The point here is not whether we have the resources to honour a right but whether we can shake the modest resource basket that we have, to the prioritise funding of areas more fundamental to our existence. We cannot wait for more resources to provide those conditions that honours the irreducible minimum right to be human. A right to live not merely exist.
This was close on the heels of another judgement which directed the Centre to expand and double the potential of the Sampoorna Grain Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) for the summer months which could imply doubling grain allocation to 10 million tonnes, and also an increase in the cash allocation to states by at least Rs 5000 crore.
The first case gave meaningful content to the fundamental right to livelihood. The second has sought to make operational the fundamental right to food. Together they sent out the message that when it comes to fundamental rights the argument of paucity of funds holds no water. It is important to see this in its right context. Most fundamental social and economic rights—like right to livelihood, shelter, food and access to water—have failed to work for the poor in the past because of the feeble nature of their legal obligation.
Talking of suffering, the prevalent drought conditions have brought enormous suffering to people because of water scarcity. People are fighting, dying, seeing their livestock perish, and even losing the chance to marry. The higher courts over the last five years, or so, in separate verdicts have talked about the right to clean water as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet a closer look on all those judgments would show that when it comes to operative directions, the strong sounding right takes softer forms because “limited availability of water resources as well as financial resources could not be ignored” — as an Andhra high court ruled last year. Article 21, at least in this area, has been more a living example of legal escapism and less an instrument of legal activism.
Examples can be multiplied to show that while an activist interpretation of the Constitution has led to a vibrant rights regime, is still remains for most part a regime without remedies. The phenomenon of rights without remedies provoked a UN Committee to say that breaches of economic, social and cultural rights, in the face of “the magnitude, severity and constancy of deprivation have provoked attitudes of resignation, feelings of helplessness and compassion fatigue”. Even assuming that intentions to honour these rights are in place, the omnipresent argument of lack of resources reduces the right into a programme that is subject to “progressive realisation”. That explains why we have failed to entrench these social and economic rights. There should be no good reason for this because once it is understood that every right has to have a remedy, the perceived distinction between rights ensuring freedom from want and freedom from fear becomes artificial. This is where the common lesson provided by the two recent interventions of the Supreme Court make sense and deserves to be taken further.
If the realist had pangs of compassion fatigue reading stories of unpaid salaries last year, the optimist observer today should feel rescued—as remedy replaces fatigue—by the Supreme Court and see in the judgement the end of a beginning! It is time to realise that fundamental rights, particularly in the Indian context, where judicial activism continues to be on high, have the capacity to influence and reorder the most basic political choices confronting society. The argument of realising the social and economic rights ‘progressively’ cannot be used by the government to say that its hand are tied when it comes to giving effect to its ‘minimum core obligation’ in respect of these rights. The fundamental rights that have been interpreted under Article 21 of the Constitution can only be seen as representing these core obligations. The unpaid salaries case in Bihar should be seen as a ringing reminder that if aspects of fundamental social and economic development are ignored, they can be enforced.
The rights language alone can enforce a cash-strapped, unwilling government to divert money to a cause it never paid even lip service too. The point here is not whether we have the resources to honour a right but whether we can shake the modest resource basket that we have, to the prioritise funding of areas more fundamental to our existence. We cannot wait for more resources to provide those conditions that honours the irreducible minimum right to be human. A right to live not merely exist.