JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J.
1. The material averments in the memorandum of this petition are these. The petitioner is a poor citizen of this country. He is penniless, unemployed and without any shelter. Thoroughly disappointed, he sent a letter to the Prime Minister requesting that he may be given financial aid so that he may arrange for his fooding, clothing and lodging. He also informed the Prime Minister that in case help was not given there will be no alternative but to either commit some crime or commit suicide. By a letter dated February 17, 1988, the Secretariat of the Prime Minister informed the petitioner that the Prime Minister had not been allotted any fund from which financial aid, as claimed by the petitioner, could be given. The petitioner addressed a letter to the President of the country. The President's Secretariat forwarded the letter of the petitioner to the Chief Secretary of this State. The Chief Secretary informed the petitioner that his problem had been forwarded to the District Magistrate, Kanpur, for taking necessary action. The petitioner did not receive any reply from the District Magistrate despite his letter dated July 13, 1989, addressed to the said Officer. On December 15, 1989, the petitioner notified through publication in the press as well as by sending letters to the President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Kanpur that he would commit suicide on January 30, 1990. The petitioner addressed a communication to the President praying that since a democratic Government had not been able to provide him (the petitioner) fooding, clothing and lodging, the vote cast by him may be treated as withdrawn.
2. The prayers in the petition are these. Steps may be taken to get rid the petitioner of poverty, unemployment and lack of shelter so that his lost confidence in the democratic system may be restored. If that is not possible, the vote cast by the petitioner may be treated as not having been cast. If the petitioner commits any crime or commits suicide on account of poverty, unemployment and lack of shelter, he may not be punished.
3. The sole respondent to this petition is the Union of India. In spite of time being granted to the counsel for the Union of India, no counter-affidavit has been filed.
4. We have heard the petitioner, who had appeared in person and we have also gone through the petition more than once, which is in the Hindi language.
5. Neither the right to get an employment, nor the right to get food, nor the right to get clothing, nor the right to get shelter has so far been recognised as a fundamental right by the Constitution of this country. No statute has been introduced so far as to confer a legal right in any person in this country to claim either employment, or food, or clothing or shelter from the State. Dradlaugh v.Cosset (1984) 12 QDD 271. at page 285 Stephen, J. observed:
"The maxim that there is no wrong without a remedy does not mean, as it is sometimes supposed, that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong. If this were its meaning it would be manifestly untrue. There is no legal remedy for the breach of a solemn promise not under seal, nor for many kinds of verbal slander though each may involve ruin.
The maxim means only that legal wrong and legal remedy are correlative terms, and it would be more intelligibly and correctly said, if it were reversed, so as to stand. When there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong".
6. The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a mandamus. In Mani Subrat Jain etc., v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 276. Ray, C.J. observed; "It is elementary though it is to he restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right, i.e., a judicially unenforceable right".
7. Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy. Articles 36 to 51 are to be found in Part IV. Article 38 mandates the State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, Article 39, inter alia, provides that the State shall in particular, direct its policies towards securing that the citizens, men and women, equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 41 ordains that the State shall, within the limits of its econimic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing right to work etc. However, we are not empowered to direct the State to give effect to the Directive Principles as Article 37 prohibits us from doing so. It commands that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court.
8. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, Judges Bench speaking through Chandrachud, C.J. in paragraph 33 observed:
".....The principles contained in Articles 39(a) and 41 must be regarded as equally fundamental in the understanding and interpretation of the meaning and content of fundamental rights. If there is an obligation upon the State to secure to the citizens an adequate means of livelihood and the work it would be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of right to life. The State may not, by affirmative action be compellable to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to citizens. But, any person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to fair and just procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to live conferred by Article 21."
We, therefore, cannot compel the respondent to provide means of livelihood or work to the petitioner.
9. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code posits, inter alia, that whosoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished. We, therefore, cannot issue a mandamus to the respondent not to punish the petitioner if he attempts to commit suicide.
10. The Founding Fathers of our Constitution thought it proper to make the Constitution supreme. The three wings of the State namely, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary are left free to act independently of each other in their own spheres. The grievance made by the petitioner, in our opinion, calls for a political solution. Under the scheme of the Constitution, such questions are beyond the domain of the judiciary. The petitioner, therefore, will be well advised to seek his remedy elsewhere.
11. The petition is dismissed summarily.