Consider the following statements regarding legal cases and the rights they established or expanded under Article 21: 1. The Olga Tellis case established the Right to Livelihood as part of the Right to Life. 2. The Subhash Kumar case primarily dealt with the Right to Education. 3. The Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti case is related to the Right to Shelter. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

The correct option is (a). Explanation Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Through judicial activism and liberal interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include various implied rights essential for a dignified life, such as the right to livelihood, clean environment, and health. Statement-wise Analysis: - Statement 1 is Correct: In the landmark case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the Right to Livelihood is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court reasoned that no person can live without the means of living, i.e., 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. - Statement 2 is Incorrect: The case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1991) is related to the Right to a Pollution-Free Environment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. The Right to Education was primarily established through cases like Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993), and later codified by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act. - Statement 3 is Incorrect: The case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti vs. State of West Bengal (1996) is related to the Right to Health and timely medical treatment. The Supreme Court held that the failure of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of emergency aid amounts to a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Right to Shelter is associated with cases such as Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P. (1996). Key Takeaway: Article 21 is an umbrella provision that encompasses implied rights. Olga Tellis relates to Livelihood, Subhash Kumar relates to Environment, and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti relates to Health/Emergency Medical Aid.

NCERT Class 8 Political Science — Chapter 6: Law and Social Justice

mcqhard

Consider the following statements regarding legal cases and the rights they established or expanded under Article 21:

The Olga Tellis case established the Right to Livelihood as part of the Right to Life.
The Subhash Kumar case primarily dealt with the Right to Education.
The Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti case is related to the Right to Shelter.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Official previous-year question

Verified 1 Aug 2026.

Options

A1 only
B2 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Did you get this right?

Solution

The correct option is (a).

Explanation

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Through judicial activism and liberal interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include various implied rights essential for a dignified life, such as the right to livelihood, clean environment, and health.

Statement-wise Analysis:

Statement 1 is Correct: In the landmark case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the Right to Livelihood is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court reasoned that no person can live without the means of living, i.e., 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.
Statement 2 is Incorrect: The case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1991) is related to the Right to a Pollution-Free Environment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. The Right to Education was primarily established through cases like Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993), and later codified by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act.
Statement 3 is Incorrect: The case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti vs. State of West Bengal (1996) is related to the Right to Health and timely medical treatment. The Supreme Court held that the failure of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of emergency aid amounts to a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Right to Shelter is associated with cases such as Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P. (1996).

Key Takeaway:

Article 21 is an umbrella provision that encompasses implied rights. Olga Tellis relates to Livelihood, Subhash Kumar relates to Environment, and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti relates to Health/Emergency Medical Aid.

Your note

More from Chapter 6: Law and Social Justice

Consider the following statements regarding the regulation of markets and economic interactions: 1. Laws are enacted solely to protect the profit margins of producers without regard for consumers. 2. State intervention is often required in markets to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable groups. 3. The chain of markets linking producers to buyers involves buying and selling at every step. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

medium

With reference to the concept of 'Minimum Wages' in India, consider the following 1. The primary objective of the minimum wage law is to ensure that workers are not underpaid by their employers. 2. Once set, the minimum wages remain fixed for a period of ten years to ensure stability. 3. This law is intended to protect the interests of various types of workers, including farm labourers. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

medium

In the context of the Indian textile industry, 'Power Looms' are best described as:

medium

With reference to the role of Workers' Unions, consider the following statements: 1. They allow workers to use combined power to demand better working conditions. 2. They are strictly prohibited by law in the informal sector such as domestic work. 3. They facilitate bargaining for fair wages. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

medium

In the framework of governmental functions, which term refers to ensuring that laws enacted by the legislature are implemented and complied with?

easy

Keep practising Chapter 6: Law and Social Justice

Work through every question from this NCERT chapter.

Browse all NCERT Class 8 Political Science chapters

The correct option is (a).

Explanation

Statement-wise Analysis:

Statement 1 is Correct: In the landmark case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the Right to Livelihood is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Court reasoned that no person can live without the means of living, i.e., 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.
Statement 2 is Incorrect: The case of Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1991) is related to the Right to a Pollution-Free Environment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. The Right to Education was primarily established through cases like Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993), and later codified by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act.
Statement 3 is Incorrect: The case of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti vs. State of West Bengal (1996) is related to the Right to Health and timely medical treatment. The Supreme Court held that the failure of government hospitals to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of emergency aid amounts to a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Right to Shelter is associated with cases such as Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P. (1996).

Key Takeaway: