Is There a Fundamental Right to Environment in India?

 Yes, the Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment is implicitly recognized as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Article 21:

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to live in a pollution-free environment, safe drinking water, and clean air. The judiciary has played a critical role in this evolution.

 

Key Judicial Pronouncements:

1.     Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420

• Held that the "right to life" includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life.

2.     M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463 (Oleum Gas Leak Case):

• The Supreme Court recognised environmental protection as part of Article 21 and introduced the principle of absolute liability.

 

 

Right to Healthy Environment under Part III of the Constitution: Articles 21 & 14

Introduction:

Environmental degradation directly affects human life and dignity. Although the Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the “right to a clean environment,” the Indian judiciary has expansively interpreted Part III – Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 21 and Article 14, to include the right to a wholesome environment as an inalienable fundamental right.

 

I. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Text of Article 21:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Originally, the term “life” under Article 21 was narrowly interpreted. However, in post-Maneka Gandhi jurisprudence, the Supreme Court gave a wide and liberal interpretation, holding that the term includes the right to live with dignity, which further includes the right to a clean and healthy environment.

 

Judicial Interpretation:

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), AIR 1988 SC 1115

The Court held that pollution of the Ganga river amounted to a violation of the right to life under Article 21, as it affected the health and well-being of millions.

2. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420

The right to life includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. A citizen can approach the court under Article 32 to remove pollution affecting life and health.

3. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577

The right to life is not only confined to physical existence but also includes the right to live with human dignity and free from environmental degradation.

4. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267

The Court emphasized the necessity to preserve forests as a part of ecological balance, which is integral to life under Article 21.

 

Principles Developed Under Article 21:

• Precautionary Principle
• Polluter Pays Principle
• Sustainable Development
• Public Trust Doctrine

These doctrines were judicially evolved to strengthen the environmental dimensions of Article 21.

 

II. Article 14 – Right to Equality

Text of Article 14:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

While Article 14 is primarily concerned with equality and non-arbitrariness, the judiciary has applied it to environmental issues to ensure non-discriminatory environmental governance and to check arbitrary state action that affects the environment.

 

Judicial Interpretation:

1. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718

The Court stated that arbitrary grant of environmental clearance without scientific assessment would violate Article 14 due to unequal and irrational treatment.

3. Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549

The Supreme Court held that arbitrary allocation of tank land for construction, ignoring environmental factors, was violative of Article 14, which guarantees fairness and accountability in State actions.

 

III. Relationship Between Articles 21 and 14 in Environmental Jurisprudence:

• Article 21 ensures the substantive right to a clean and healthy environment.
• Article 14 ensures procedural fairness, non-arbitrariness, and equal protection in decisions affecting the environment.

Together, these articles form a constitutional bulwark against environmental degradation. They ensure:

• That State policies are environmentally sound.
• That citizens’ environmental rights are justiciable.
• That environmental clearances are not granted arbitrarily.
• That affected individuals and communities are protected from unequal and unsafe exposure to environmental harm.

 

 

2(b) Right to Trade vs. Duty to Protect the Environment – [5 Marks]

Constitutional Right:

• Article 19(1)(g) – Guarantees the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

Reasonable Restrictions – Article 19(6):

The right to trade is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public or public health and environmental protection.

 

Judicial Approach:

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), (1997) 2 SCC 353

Held: Industries operating in the Taj Trapezium Zone causing pollution could be relocated or shut down. The right to trade cannot override the right to a clean environment under Article 21.

2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715

Held: The Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle are part of environmental law. The court allowed closure of tanneries despite the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g).

 

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction:

Courts have harmonized economic freedom with environmental rights, ensuring development without degradation.

 

 

C. Role of Judiciary in Recognising Right to Clean Environment under Article 21:

The Indian judiciary has played a proactive and innovative role in expanding the scope of Article 21 to include environmental rights.

 

Landmark Judgments:

1. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420

“Right to life includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.”

• This was the first time the Supreme Court explicitly linked clean environment with Article 21.

 

2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), AIR 1988 SC 1115

• The Court issued directions to tanneries polluting the Ganga river, holding that such pollution violated the right to life under Article 21.

 

3. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577

"Environmental, ecological, air, water pollution etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of the right to life under Article 21."

 

 

5. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715

• Introduced Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle, holding that sustainable development is an integral part of Article 21.

 

6. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622

• The Court directed the municipality to stop sewage and sanitation pollution, reaffirming that citizens have the right to live in clean surroundings.

 

D. Principles Evolved by Judiciary for Environmental Protection under Article 21:

1. Polluter Pays Principle
2. Precautionary Principle
3. Public Trust Doctrine
4. Sustainable Development
5. Absolute Liability
6. Intergenerational Equity

 

E. Judicial Mechanisms for Enforcement:

1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

• The courts have liberalized locus standi in environmental matters.
• NGOs, activists, and concerned citizens have filed PILs under Article 32 and 226 for environmental justice.

F. Role of Judiciary Beyond Article 21:

• The Supreme Court and High Courts have not only enforced environmental rights but have also filled legislative and administrative gaps by issuing guidelines and directions under their writ jurisdiction.
• The judiciary has upheld environmental justice as a part of social justice under the Preamble.