HARJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 32 out of which the contempt application arises came to be preferred by members belonging to Sikh community who were living in Delhi at the relevant time.

(2.) A tragic event-beyond belief-in the history of India took place on 31st oOctober, 1984 when smt. Indira Gandhi, the then then Prime Minister was assassinated. It was alleged that the assasins belonged to the Sikh community. This inflamed feelings. As a result, riots broke out all over the country. The members of this community were the target of attack throughout India. Particularly in Delhi, several gruesome incidents took place resulting in large scale aroson, looting, systematic violence, attacks on Gurudwaras. The duration of violence differed in various areas. Many Sikhs were killed, houses were burnt. It was an unprecedented carnage which rendered many Sikhs homeless ; many families lost their kith and kin and bread-winners. The details of these incidents are set out in the affidavit in the writ petition. A Commission was appointed, headed by Justice Ranganath Misra, (a Judge of this Court) to go into the causes of these notes. The affidavit further proceeds that Government agencies subsequently went about assessing damage and gave out that aid was being provided to the affected persons for re-settlement. In the garb of such re-settlement efforts, the Petitioners were direced to fill up forms specifying the damages and further be provided with loans from banks which would subsequently be converted into grants and to start a life afresh. The petitioners who had witnessed and were victims of a horrendus carnage took the administration as having a genuine desire to see the victims through their difficult times and applied for grants/ loans as directed. The banks which are nationalised banks, released the amounts to the petitioner for the purposes of purchase of trucks or for setting up businesses. Although signatures were taken on various documents, yet it was always held out that the money advanced was in fact a grant and would be converted into the same in due course. However, contrary to the assurances held out, banks have started initiating course of processes for recovery of the amounts so advanced. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who have started life for the third time afresh, namely, once having been rendered homeless in 1947 during the partition of this country and now having lost all means of livelihood as also most of the wordly possessions beside having suffered the traumatic experience of loss of human lives of their near and dear ones, once again started life from scratch and now are being threatened with another disastrous situation which will again render them destitutes and without means of livelihood. This has led the petitioners to move this Court for protection of rights to life and livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as part of the constitutional right to life. the easiest way for depriving the person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its facts meaning fulness but It would make life impossible to live. The right to livelihood is a part of life to live, as that, alone which makes it possible in live. On these averments, a writ of mandamus is prayed for to direct by an appropriate writ, order or direction that Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to life also guarantees right to means of livelihood and by an appropriate writ, order or direction direct that the deprivation of means of livelihood be put an end to and further direct the respondents not to insist upon nor claim further amounts from the petitioners.

(3.) Various banks have filed counter affidavits. It is enough to refer to the affidavit of Punjab and Sind Bank which stands as follows: