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.

Sustainable Development, Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pay Principle, Public Trust Doctrine

 

1(a) Sustainable Development – A Brief Note

Definition and Meaning:

Sustainable Development refers to development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This concept was first popularized in the Brundtland Report (1987) titled “Our Common Future.”

Key Elements:

1. Inter-generational equity – Fair use of resources across generations.
2. Intra-generational equity – Social equity within the present generation.
3. Environmental protection – Limiting ecological degradation.
4. Economic development – Balanced growth to reduce poverty and improve living standards.

Indian Judicial Recognition:

·        Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
The Supreme Court recognized sustainable development as an essential part of Indian environmental law and incorporated the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” into domestic jurisprudence.

·        Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
The Court observed that sustainable development does not mean no development at all but aims for a balance between ecology and economic development.

 

1(b) Critical Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals, 2024

Introduction to SDGs:

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 (Agenda 2030) and periodically updated. The 2024 update reflects emerging global crises, especially concerning climate change, technology, pandemics, and economic recovery.

Key Goals (SDG 2024 – Selected Highlights):

1.     Goal 13 – Climate Action:
Emphasizes drastic reduction in GHG emissions and adoption of clean energy.

2.     Goal 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation:
Focuses on water recycling and universal access to potable water.

3.     Goal 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy:
Calls for universal energy access and transition to renewables.

4.     Goal 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production:
Includes minimizing food waste and promoting sustainable supply chains.

Critical Evaluation:

·        Achievements:

• Brought environmental issues to global attention.
• Encouraged national policy integration (e.g., India’s NAPCC).
• Mobilized private sector and civil society involvement.

·        Challenges:

• Lack of legal enforceability – SDGs are not legally binding.
• Funding Gaps – Developing nations lack sufficient infrastructure.
• Over-reliance on voluntary national reviews (VNRs).
• Inequity in technological support – Developing nations struggle with tech transfer and innovation.

·        India’s Role in SDG Implementation:

• NITI Aayog monitors SDG progress through the SDG India Index.
• Schemes like Swachh Bharat Mission, UJALA, and Beti Bachao Beti Padhao contribute directly to SDG targets.

Conclusion:

While the SDGs represent a noble vision of inclusive growth and environmental stability, the 2024 update still reflects gaps in enforceability, accountability, and international cooperation—especially for developing nations like India.

 

Q.4: Discuss the Principles and Doctrines Evolved by the Supreme Court of India for the Protection of Environment

[Marks: 20]

 

Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has played a proactive and activist role in environmental protection, especially in the absence of effective statutory implementation. Over time, the Court has evolved several environmental principles and doctrines, integrating them with the constitutional mandate under Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 48A (Directive Principles of State Policy), and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty).

 

Key Principles and Doctrines Developed by the Supreme Court:

 

1. Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)

Essence:

This principle mandates that polluters must bear the cost of pollution and environmental degradation caused by them, including compensation and restoration of the environment.

Judicial Recognition:

·        ⚖ Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212
The Court held that chemical industries causing pollution must compensate the affected villagers and bear the cost of environmental restoration.

·        ⚖ Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
The Court made PPP an integral part of Indian environmental jurisprudence.

 

2. Precautionary Principle

Essence:

Where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental harm, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Judicial Recognition:

·        ⚖ Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715
The Supreme Court held that Precautionary Principle is a part of the law of the land.

·        ⚖ A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718
The Court elaborated on the relevance of this principle in decision-making involving environmental risks.

 

3. Public Trust Doctrine

Essence:

The State is the trustee of natural resources and is under a legal obligation to protect, preserve and not allow their exploitation for private interests.

Judicial Recognition:

·        ⚖ M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388
The Court applied this doctrine to prevent the encroachment of the Beas riverbed by a private hotel.

·        ⚖ Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, (2009) 3 SCC 571
The Court emphasized that coastal land cannot be alienated for private profits.

 

4. Absolute Liability Principle

Essence:

Industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities are absolutely liable to compensate for any harm caused, without any exceptions or defenses.

Judicial Recognition:

• ⚖ M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case), AIR 1987 SC 965
  The Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of absolute liability, going beyond the English doctrine of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.

 

5. Sustainable Development

Essence:

Development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations, ensuring balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

Judicial Recognition:

·        ⚖ Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664
The Court accepted the necessity of the Sardar Sarovar Dam while emphasizing rehabilitation and ecological balance.

·        ⚖ T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228
The Court emphasized that sustainable development includes forest and wildlife conservation.

 

6. Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity

Essence:

The present generation holds the environment in trust for future generations and must use natural resources in a way that leaves them intact for posterity.

Judicial Recognition:

• ⚖ State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149
  The Court banned establishment of wood-based industries near forest areas, emphasizing long-term environmental preservation.

 

7. Doctrine of Proportionality

Essence:

Environmental restrictions must be proportional to the threat, balancing environmental needs with developmental rights.

Judicial Application:

• ⚖ T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228
  The Court balanced ecological concerns with economic needs and infrastructure projects, such as highways and electricity grids.

 

8. Principle of Natural Justice and Environmental Governance

Essence:

Environmental decisions must follow principles of fair hearing, reasoned decision-making, and transparency.

Judicial Recognition:

• ⚖ A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718
  The Court stressed the need for scientific and participatory environmental decision-making, invoking natural justice.

 

9. Integration of Environmental Rights with Article 21 (Right to Life)

Essence:

The right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment.

Key Cases:

·        ⚖ Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
Right to life includes right to pollution-free water and air.

·        ⚖ M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, multiple cases
The Court expanded Article 21 to encompass environmental protection, clean water, clean air, and sanitation.

 

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of India has been a champion of environmental protection through its innovative and bold jurisprudence. By evolving these doctrines and principles, it has filled gaps in legislative and executive actions and has ensured that the right to a healthy environment is preserved for present and future generations. These doctrines now form the foundation of environmental governance in India and are frequently applied in environmental litigations, policy reviews, and administrative

 

Definition of Industry and its Evolution

 

Relevant Provision:

• Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Statutory Definition:

According to Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

“Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.

 Key Elements:

The definition includes:

• Activities of the employer (business, trade, manufacture)
• Activities of the employees (service, employment, handicraft, etc.)

2. Three Phases of the Meaning of Industry

The interpretation of the term "industry" has undergone three phases:

 Phase 1: Pre-Bangalore Case (Restrictive Interpretation)

In the early years, courts interpreted "industry" narrowly, focusing on profit-oriented, commercial activities. Institutions like hospitals, clubs, and educational institutions were excluded.

 Phase 2: Bangalore Water Supply Case (Widened Interpretation)

Landmark Case:

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213

Facts:
Employees of the Bangalore Water Supply Board raised an industrial dispute. The employer challenged that the Board was not an "industry" under the Act.

Issue:
Whether a government utility body like Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board qualifies as an "industry."

Judgment:
A 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Krishna Iyer, gave an expansive interpretation of "industry" and held that even non-profit, public utility, educational and charitable institutions could fall under the term “industry” if they fulfill the “triple test”.

Triple Test laid down by the Court:

1. Systematic activity
2. Cooperation between employer and employee
3. Production and distribution of goods/services to satisfy human wants

Exclusion only if: The activity is spiritual/religious, or involves personal services (like domestic servants), or purely sovereign functions (legislation, judiciary, etc.).

Held:

• Clubs, hospitals, educational institutions, even municipalities, may come under the term industry if the above tests are satisfied.
• A broad and inclusive approach was adopted.

 Phase 3: Post-Bangalore Criticism and Legislative Reaction

After the Bangalore case, there was widespread criticism due to the over-inclusive nature of the definition, bringing even charitable institutions and non-profits under industrial law obligations.

To address this:

 Proposed Amendment:

• In 1982, Parliament passed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (but not notified) which sought to redefine “industry” and exclude:
• Charitable institutions
• Hospitals
• Educational institutions
• Professions
• Clubs and cooperatives

However, since the amendment was never brought into force, the Bangalore Water Supply decision remains good law.

3. Institutions Included or Excluded as Industry

 Included as "Industry":

1.     Hospitals

• Bangalore Water Supply Case – Held: Hospitals with systematic employment and services fall under "industry".

2.     Clubs

• If run in a business-like manner with employees, fall under "industry".

3.     Educational Institutions

• University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, AIR 1963 SC 1873 – Initially excluded.
• But post-Bangalore case, even private educational institutions are included if they satisfy the triple test.

4.     Municipalities and Local Authorities

• If providing water, sanitation, and other services, are industries.
• Bangalore Water Supply – Municipality included.

 Excluded from "Industry":

1.     Purely Sovereign Functions:

• Activities like policing, defence, judiciary not considered industry.

2.     Domestic Services:

• Employers of domestic servants not considered industry.

3.     Religious Institutions:

• Institutions engaged in spiritual or religious functions are excluded.

 

4. Summary of Important Case Law

 (i) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213

In this seminal case, the Supreme Court dealt with the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court adopted a wide interpretation and introduced the “triple test” to determine what constitutes an industry. Justice Krishna Iyer held that systematic activity, organised cooperation between employer and employee, and the production/distribution of goods/services aimed at satisfying human wants, collectively define an “industry”. The judgment brought in even non-profit and charitable institutions such as hospitals, educational institutions, and clubs within its ambit, as long as they satisfied this test.

 (ii) State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a hospital run by the State for providing medical services to the public was an “industry” under the Act. The decision emphasized that the motive (profit or no-profit) is not decisive. The focus should be on the nature of the activity and whether there exists employer-employee cooperation to deliver services.

 (iii) Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi, AIR 1970 SC 1407

The Court ruled that a government-run hospital is not an “industry” due to its welfare orientation and lack of profit motive. However, this view was overruled in the Bangalore Water Supply case, which included even government-run hospitals under "industry".

 Conclusion:

The term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act has evolved from a narrow, profit-based definition to a broad, inclusive one, largely due to judicial activism. Despite criticism and attempted statutory amendments, the Bangalore Water Supply judgment still stands as the authoritative precedent, making it a cornerstone for interpreting labour disputes and employee rights in diverse sectors.

 

Constitutional Provisions for Environmental Protection

 

🔹 1. Article 21 – Right to Life (Part III: Fundamental Rights)

• Guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
• The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
• Key Case: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 – Held that the right to pollution-free water and air is part of Article 21.

 

🔹 2. Article 48A – Protection and Improvement of Environment (Part IV: Directive Principles of State Policy)

• Inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
• Text: “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”
• It guides the state in making eco-friendly policies and environmental laws.

 

🔹 3. Article 51A(g) – Fundamental Duties (Part IVA)

• Also inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
• It is the duty of every citizen of India to:

“Protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.”

• Imposes a moral responsibility on citizens to protect the environment.

 

🔹 4. Article 14 – Equality before Law (Part III: Fundamental Rights)

• Any arbitrary action affecting environmental health and safety may be challenged under Article 14.
• The State must act reasonably and not discriminate in granting permissions for hazardous industries.
• Case Law: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715 – Principles of Sustainable Development were applied under Art. 14 & 21.

 

🔹 5. Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom to Practice Any Profession

• The freedom to carry on any occupation or trade is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
• Environmental regulations are valid restrictions on polluting industries.
• Example: Closure of industries violating pollution norms is not violative of Article 19(1)(g).

 

🔹 6. Article 243G & Schedule XI – Powers of Panchayats

• Schedule XI, read with Article 243G, empowers Panchayats to deal with matters including:
• Water management
• Soil conservation
• Forestry
• Animal husbandry
• Provides a constitutional basis for decentralised environmental governance at local levels.

 

🔹 7. Article 243W & Schedule XII – Powers of Municipalities

• Schedule XII, read with Article 243W, empowers municipalities in relation to:
• Urban forestry
• Protection of the environment
• Public health and sanitation
• Ensures environmental management in urban local governance.

 

🔹 8. Article 32 & 226 – Constitutional Remedies (Writ Jurisdiction)

• These empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs in cases of environmental degradation.
• Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed under these Articles to protect the environment.
• Example: MC Mehta series of cases on Ganga pollution, vehicular emission in Delhi, etc.

 

🔹 9. Article 39(b) & (e) – Directive Principles of State Policy

• Art. 39(b): Distribution of resources to serve the common good.
• Art. 39(e): Protection of workers and children from hazardous work environments.
• These principles support sustainable and equitable use of natural resources.

 

🔹 10. Article 47 – Duty of the State to Improve Public Health (Part IV)

• Imposes a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and improve public health.
• Environmental health is directly connected with public health.

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

 

National Green Tribunal (NGT)

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) is a specialized judicial body established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, to handle environmental disputes and cases involving substantial environmental questions and enforcement of legal rights relating to the environment.

The key objective of NGT is to provide a speedy, effective, and specialized forum for the adjudication of environmental matters, reducing the burden on regular courts. It ensures compliance with environmental laws such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Water Act, 1974, Air Act, 1981, and Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

Key Features:

• Section 14 provides for original jurisdiction over civil cases related to environmental protection.
• Section 16 provides appellate jurisdiction over orders passed by pollution control boards and environmental authorities.
• The tribunal follows principles of natural justice, polluter pays, and the precautionary principle.
• It consists of both judicial and expert members, ensuring technical and legal evaluation of cases.

In Goa Foundation v. Union of India, the NGT suspended environmental clearances for mining due to non-compliance with ecological norms, highlighting its proactive stance.

The NGT has been instrumental in matters like Yamuna floodplains encroachment, Ganga river pollution, and air pollution in Delhi-NCR. However, it has also faced criticism for inconsistent jurisdictional interpretations and limited enforcement capacity.

Despite these challenges, the NGT represents a progressive step toward green justice, ensuring that environmental governance in India is accessible, efficient, and accountable.