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.
