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.

Salient Features AND Objective of National Environment Policy (NEP), 2006

 

Salient Features of National Environment Policy (NEP), 2006

The NEP 2006 is India’s first comprehensive policy that consolidates previous sectoral policies and integrates sustainable development into planning.

Key Features:

1.     Conservation of Critical Environmental Resources:

• Focus on forests, wildlife, water resources, biodiversity, and ecological sensitive zones.

2.     Integration of Environmental Concerns in Economic and Social Development:

• Environmental sustainability to be embedded in all developmental processes.

3.     Intra-generational and Inter-generational Equity:

• Ensuring environmental justice to present and future generations.

4.     Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle:

• Adoption of key environmental principles to ensure accountability.

5.     Use of Economic Instruments:

• Promotion of market-based tools like carbon trading, green taxes, and subsidies for clean technologies.

6.     Decentralisation and Local Governance:

• Strengthening Panchayati Raj and local bodies for better implementation of environmental programmes.

7.     Enhancing Environmental Awareness:

• Promoting environmental education, awareness, and participation at all levels.

8.     Public Participation and Transparency:

• Inclusive decision-making through access to environmental information and public hearings.

9.     Strengthening Environmental Institutions:

• Capacity building of pollution control boards, ministries, and other regulatory bodies.

10.  Special Attention to Vulnerable Groups:

• Focus on tribal communities, coastal populations, and women affected by environmental degradation.

 

Conclusion:

India’s environmental policy has moved from spiritual reverence to legal and institutional frameworks. The NEP 2006 provides a comprehensive and forward-looking approach, emphasizing sustainable development, equity, and participatory governance. However, effective implementation remains a critical challenge.

Object of National Environmental Policy (NEP), 2006

The National Environmental Policy (NEP), 2006 is a comprehensive document by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) that outlines India's environmental vision and policy framework. The policy aims to balance environmental conservation with economic development.

Key Objectives:

• Ensure sustainable development by integrating environmental concerns into decision-making across all sectors.
• Conserve critical environmental resources like forests, biodiversity, water, and air.
• Address pollution through technological innovation and market-based incentives.
• Ensure equitable access to environmental resources for all sections of society, especially marginalized communities.
• Promote the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, and Public Trust Doctrine.

It also emphasizes the role of community participation, recognizing the knowledge and rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities. The policy encourages decentralization and involvement of local bodies in environmental management.

The NEP 2006 reflects India's commitments under international environmental conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNFCCC, and Agenda 21.

The policy provides a strategic framework for future environmental legislation and management programs. Though not legally binding, it serves as a guiding document for ministries, state governments, and local authorities to adopt eco-sensitive practices.

By addressing environmental protection through a development-oriented approach, the NEP 2006 seeks to promote inter-generational equity and ecological sustainability as key pillars of India’s growth model.

 

 

Kinds of Pollution

 Pollution refers to the contamination (making dirty) of the natural environment resulting in adverse effects on living beings and the ecosystem.

Environmental pollution refers to the contamination of natural resources due to harmful substances, adversely affecting living organisms and ecosystems. The major types of environmental pollution include:

1.     Air Pollution – Caused by industrial emissions, vehicle exhausts, burning of fossil fuels, etc. It includes pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. It leads to respiratory diseases, global warming, and acid rain.
Case: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution case), AIR 1999 SC 301.

2.     Water Pollution – Discharge of untreated industrial effluents, sewage, and chemicals into water bodies. It affects aquatic life and human health.
Case: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), AIR 1988 SC 1037.

3.     Soil Pollution – Due to overuse of pesticides, fertilizers, industrial waste disposal, and deforestation. It degrades soil fertility and contaminates crops.

4.     Noise Pollution – Arises from loudspeakers, vehicles, industrial machines, and construction work. It affects mental health and leads to hearing loss.
Case: In Re: Noise Pollution – Implementation of the Laws, (2005) 5 SCC 733.

5.     Thermal and Radioactive Pollution – Release of heat and radioactive substances by power plants and nuclear industries affect ecosystems and cause genetic damage.

6.     Plastic and Solid Waste Pollution – Non-biodegradable waste clogs drains and pollutes land and water.

Each kind of pollution affects the environment and public health, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. Preventive and remedial measures are essential through legislation like the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and judicial activism.

Prem Prakash v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 637

 Case name: Prem Prakash v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2024 INSC 637; Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, Supreme Court of India​

Date of judgment: 28 August 2024​

Bench / Judges: B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. (judgment by K. V. Viswanathan, J.)​

 

Facts

An FIR (Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022, Ranchi) alleged that a one‑acre plot at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi, was fraudulently acquired through forged title documents and sham sale transactions involving various accused; the FIR did not name Prem Prakash. Since sections 420 and 467 IPC are scheduled offences, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered ECIR No. 5 of 2023 under the PMLA. ED alleged that ₹1.01 crore out of the sale consideration flowed, via accounts of Punit Bhargava, to M/s Jamini Enterprises, said to be beneficially owned by Prem Prakash, and that he used his connections to get the land mutated and facilitate the deal. He was arrayed as A‑8, arrested on 11 August 2023 (while already in custody in another ECIR), and his bail application under section 45 PMLA was rejected by the Special Court and by the Jharkhand High Court.​

 

Judgment / Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 22 March 2024, and directed that Prem Prakash be released on bail in ECIR No. 5 of 2023 on furnishing a bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties, subject to conditions (surrender of passport, weekly reporting to the IO, and non‑tampering with evidence). Applying section 45 PMLA in light of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Manish Sisodia (II), the Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant was not guilty of the alleged money‑laundering offence and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail, particularly given over a year’s incarceration, non‑commencement of trial, and weak material linking him to the forged sale deed or “proceeds of crime.”​

 

Key observations

• The Court reaffirmed that even under PMLA “bail is the rule, jail the exception,” as a facet of Article 21, and that section 45 imposes stringent but not absolute restraints; courts at the bail stage need only form a prima facie view on “reasonable grounds for believing” based on probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.​
• It stressed that under section 24 PMLA the prosecution must first establish three foundational facts (existence of scheduled crime, derivation of property as proceeds of crime, and the accused’s involvement in a process or activity connected with such proceeds) before the statutory presumption and twin conditions can operate.​
• The Court held that statements of the appellant recorded under section 50 PMLA while he was already in judicial custody in another ED case are hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used against him, and that co‑accused statements (e.g., Afshar Ali, Saddam Hussain) have only limited corroborative value akin to section 30 Evidence Act.​

 

Obiter dicta

• The judgment clarifies that when a person is in custody in one PMLA case, any statement the same agency records under section 50 in another ECIR cannot safely be treated as voluntary; to admit it against the maker would offend fair‑procedure requirements under Article 21 and the protective logic of section 25 Evidence Act.​
• It emphasises the importance of detailed, case‑specific counter‑affidavits by ED in bail matters, explaining how the three foundational facts are made out, rather than relying on generic assertions; only then can the presumption under section 24 shift the burden to the accused.​
• Relying on recent PMLA bail decisions, the Court reiterates that prolonged pre‑trial custody, especially where trial is nowhere near conclusion and the case does not involve extreme offences or massive public victimisation, should weigh heavily in favour of conditional liberty; pre‑trial detention must not become “punishment without trial.”​

Pravin C. Shah v. K. A. Mohd. Ali and Another Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 2000; reported as (2001) 8 SCC 650

 

Case name: Pravin C. Shah v. K. A. Mohd. Ali and Another

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 2000; reported as (2001) 8 SCC 650​

Date of judgment: 9 October 2001​

Bench / Judges: K. T. Thomas and S. N. Variava, JJ. (judgment by K. T. Thomas, J.)​

 

Facts

The respondent, an advocate practising in Ernakulam, was twice found guilty of criminal contempt by the Kerala High Court and convicted under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, with fines imposed; his challenges in the Supreme Court failed save for deletion of one fine, and his apology was expressly rejected. Despite this, he continued to appear and argue cases. On a complaint by a residents’ association represented by the appellant, the Bar Council of Kerala initiated disciplinary proceedings and ordered that he be debarred from acting or pleading in any court until he purged himself of contempt as per Rule 11 of the Kerala High Court Rules under section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. The Bar Council of India, on appeal, set aside this order, holding Rule 11 inapplicable as it allegedly usurped Bar Council powers. The association appealed to the Supreme Court.​

 

Judgment/Holdingthe 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the effect of Rule 11, holding that it is a self‑operating rule framed by the High Court to regulate appearance and conduct of advocates in court and does not trench upon the Bar Councils’ disciplinary jurisdiction over the right to practise. Once an advocate is found guilty of contempt, his right to appear, act or plead in any court within the High Court’s jurisdiction stands automatically suspended until he purges himself of contempt by genuine remorse and acceptance of apology by the competent court; mere undergoing of sentence or payment of fine is insufficient. The Bar Council of India erred in treating Rule 11 as unconstitutional or as an encroachment on its autonomy; courts retain supervisory control over who appears before them to protect their dignity and orderly functioning. The Court directed Registrars to inform all subordinate courts whenever an advocate is convicted for contempt so that the interdict is enforced until purge.​

 

Key observations

• The Court distinguished between the “right to practise” (a broader genus regulated by Bar Councils, including drafting, advising, etc.) and the “right to appear and conduct cases in court” (a species subject to the court’s own control via rules under section 34 Advocates Act).​
• Rule 11 concerns only in‑court appearance of an advocate found guilty of contempt; it does not impose disciplinary punishment or affect chamber practice, so it does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21.​
• Purging contempt in criminal contempt cases requires more than completion of sentence: it needs real contrition, a sincere apology accepted by the court through an order acknowledging purge; only then does the bar on appearance cease.​

 

Obiter dicta

• The judgment stresses that allowing a recently convicted contemnor to stand and argue in the same courts, “unaffected” by his contumacious conduct, would erode public confidence, corrode the court’s majesty, and undermine the justice system; hence courts must retain strict control over courtroom conduct.​
• It explains that disciplinary powers of Bar Councils (suspending or removing an advocate’s licence) and courts’ contempt powers (including restricting appearance until purge) are “separate and distinct” jurisdictions, both validly co‑existing under Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India.​
• The Court clarifies that apologies offered merely as a device to avoid punishment, without genuine remorse, do not amount to purging contempt, citing earlier cases like M. Y. Shareef, Mulk Raj, and M. B. Sanghi, and that “soft justice” in such situations is inappropriate.​