Study on law hills

Thursday, 1 January 2026

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:

Polluter Pays Principle
Precautionary Principle
Public Trust Doctrine
Sustainable Development
Absolute Liability
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:

Inter-generational equity – Fair use of resources across generations.
Intra-generational equity – Social equity within the present generation.
Environmental protection – Limiting ecological degradation.
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.

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.

· ⚖ 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:

Systematic activity
Cooperation between employer and employee
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.