In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that right to livelihood is integral to right to life under Article 21 because:
- Livelihood is a fundamental right separate from Article 21
- No person can live without the means of living
- Livelihood is covered under Directive Principles only
- Livelihood is a privilege granted by State
Answer: No person can live without the means of living
Right to livelihood jurisprudence: (a) Olga Tellis (Pavement Dwellers Case): Right to livelihood integral to Article 21; eviction without alternative arrangement violates right to life, (b) Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar (1983): Livelihood not absolute; State can regulate in public interest with due procedure, (c) Operationalization: MGNREGA (right to work), rehabilitation policies for displaced persons, skill development programs. Balance: Right to livelihood subject to reasonable restrictions for public purpose with fair procedure and rehabilitation.