Introduction To Constitutional Provision related to Environment
The escalating global concerns surrounding environmental degradation have underscored the critical need for robust legal frameworks to safeguard the planet and ensure a sustainable future. In India, a nation experiencing rapid economic growth alongside significant environmental challenges, the Constitution serves as the foundational legal document providing the bedrock for environmental law. While the original Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, did not contain explicit provisions dedicated solely to environmental protection, the evolving jurisprudence, driven by constitutional amendments and proactive interpretations by the Indian judiciary, has progressively integrated environmental concerns into the nation’s legal fabric . This evolution reflects a growing societal and legal recognition of the intrinsic link between a healthy environment and the well-being of its citizens.
This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the key constitutional provisions that pertain to environmental law in India. Specifically, it will focus on Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 48-A, 51A(g), and 21 of the Constitution, examining their relevance, scope, and impact on environmental protection. Furthermore, the report will elucidate the crucial role played by Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a significant legal instrument in advancing environmental causes and ensuring accountability for environmental degradation in India. By examining these constitutional pillars and the impact of PIL, this analysis seeks to provide a thorough understanding of the legal framework underpinning environmental protection in India.
Also Read : Environment Meaning, Environmental pollution and Historical development of Environmental laws
Article 14: Equality and Environmental Justice
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution enshrines the fundamental principle of equality before the law and guarantees equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India. This seemingly broad provision holds significant relevance for environmental law, particularly in ensuring equality and non-discrimination in the realm of environmental protection . Environmental degradation, encompassing issues like pollution, deforestation, and climate change, often disproportionately affects marginalized and vulnerable communities . These communities, including women, low-income groups, and indigenous populations, frequently reside in areas more susceptible to pollution and have limited access to clean resources or the means to mitigate the adverse impacts of environmental harm. This unequal distribution of environmental burdens and benefits raises critical questions of environmental injustice, suggesting a potential failure to provide equal protection under the law in the environmental context.
The Supreme Court of India has progressively interpreted Article 14 to address these disparities. In a significant development, the Court has recognized the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as an intrinsic facet of the right to equality under Article 14 . This interpretation acknowledges that climate change impacts various segments of society differently, with marginalized communities often facing heightened vulnerabilities and consequences due to their limited adaptive capacities and greater reliance on climate-sensitive livelihoods. The Court’s reasoning likely emphasizes that the inability of underserved communities to adapt to or cope with the effects of climate change violates their right to equal protection before the law.
Furthermore, Article 14 implicitly imposes an obligation on the state to exercise fairness and impartiality in its environmental protection measures . This necessitates that environmental laws, policies, and enforcement mechanisms are applied uniformly and without bias, preventing the disproportionate imposition of environmental burdens on specific communities or the granting of undue advantages to others. If environmental regulations were applied in a discriminatory manner, allowing certain entities to pollute more freely or failing to protect specific communities from environmental harm, it would directly contravene the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. The constitutional guarantee of equality thus serves as a crucial tool in promoting environmental justice and ensuring that the state’s environmental protection efforts are equitable and non-discriminatory.
Article 19(1)(g): Freedom of Occupation and Environmental Regulations
Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. However, this fundamental right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, as outlined in Article 19(6) of the Constitution. A critical aspect of this constitutional framework is how the freedom of occupation is balanced with the necessity of environmental regulations and restrictions, particularly in a developing nation striving for both economic progress and ecological sustainability . Environmental protection constitutes a legitimate ground for imposing reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade and occupation . The Constitution itself recognizes that this freedom is not unfettered and can be reasonably curtailed in the broader public interest, which undeniably includes safeguarding the environment for present and future generations. Allowing unregulated business activities that harm the environment could infringe upon the rights of other citizens, particularly the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
Indian jurisprudence firmly establishes that citizens cannot claim the right to carry on business activities that pose significant health hazards to society or the general public under the guise of exercising their fundamental right to trade or occupation . This principle underscores that the right to a healthy environment and public health concerns take precedence over the freedom of trade when a direct conflict arises. The state, acting as a welfare state, has a primary responsibility to protect the well-being of its citizens, which justifies imposing restrictions on harmful business practices.
The Supreme Court has consistently adopted a balancing approach when considering conflicts between economic activities and environmental concerns . In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the court held that any interruption of basic environmental elements, such as air, water, and soil, which are necessary for life, would be hazardous and could not be permitted under Article 19(1)(g) . Similarly, in Sushila Saw Mill v. the State of Orissa, the Supreme Court upheld the prohibition of sawmills operating within or near forest areas, reinforcing that the right to trade is subject to statutory regulations aimed at environmental protection . Furthermore, the Supreme Court has emphasized the equal priority of the right to development through industrialization alongside the right to a clean environment, advocating for a harmonious approach through the principle of sustainable development . This judicial approach demonstrates a consistent effort to navigate the complex interplay between economic development and environmental protection, seeking a balance that ensures both progress and ecological integrity. The courts recognize that both economic activity and a healthy environment are essential for the well-being of the nation, and therefore strive to find a middle ground where economic development is pursued in an environmentally responsible manner.
Also Read : Nuisance In Environmental law: Historical development and Nuisance in IPC , CrPC , CPC
Article 48-A: Directive Principle for Environmental Protection
Article 48-A of the Indian Constitution explicitly states: “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country” . This provision was incorporated into the Constitution as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 . The inclusion of Article 48-A as a DPSP signifies a formal recognition by the State of its responsibility towards environmental protection and the safeguarding of natural resources. While DPSPs are not directly enforceable by courts, they serve as fundamental guidelines for governance. The 1970s witnessed a growing global awareness of environmental issues, culminating in the Stockholm Conference in 1972. India, being a signatory, amended its Constitution to reflect this commitment and provide a constitutional directive for environmental protection.
Article 48-A places a specific mandate upon the State, requiring it to actively strive towards protecting and improving the environment, as well as safeguarding the nation’s forests and wildlife . This imposes a positive obligation on both the Union and State governments to formulate and implement policies and enact legislation aimed at preserving ecological balance, preventing pollution, promoting afforestation, and protecting endangered species . It underscores a proactive role for the State in environmental management. The use of the word “endeavour” suggests that the State should make genuine and sustained efforts towards achieving the goals outlined in this directive. While not immediately justiciable, it provides a constitutional basis for holding the State accountable for its environmental performance.
It Is important to distinguish Article 48-A, which places a duty on the State, from the fundamental duty enshrined in Article 51A(g), which obligates every citizen towards environmental protection . This distinction highlights the shared responsibility for environmental stewardship, with the State having the primary duty to create and enforce environmental laws and policies, and citizens having a complementary duty to act in an environmentally responsible manner. Effective environmental protection requires a collaborative approach where both the government and the citizens actively participate in preserving and improving the environment. Furthermore, Article 48-A has a connection to India’s participation in various international environmental conventions and agreements . This directive provides a constitutional underpinning for the State to enact laws and policies in alignment with its international commitments. As a responsible member of the international community, India’s constitutional framework supports its efforts to address global environmental challenges through appropriate domestic legislation and policy.
Article 51A(g): Fundamental Duty Towards the Environment
Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution explicitly states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures” . This provision was also introduced into the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 as one of the Fundamental Duties of the citizens of India . The inclusion of Article 51A(g) underscores the constitutional recognition that environmental protection is not solely the obligation of the State but also a fundamental responsibility that every citizen must actively uphold. Following the global discourse on environmental responsibility and India’s commitment at the international level, the Constitution was amended to explicitly place a duty on citizens to contribute towards environmental protection.
The scope of this fundamental duty Is broad, encompassing not only the protection and improvement of the natural environment, including specific elements like forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, but also extending to having compassion for all living creatures . This calls for a holistic approach to environmental stewardship, urging citizens to actively engage in conservation efforts, adopt sustainable practices, and treat all living beings with empathy and respect . It goes beyond merely refraining from causing harm to actively contributing to environmental well-being. The inclusion of “compassion for living creatures” reflects a broader ecological consciousness that recognizes the interconnectedness of all life forms and the intrinsic value of biodiversity.
While Fundamental Duties are not directly enforceable by the courts in the same manner as Fundamental Rights, they serve as important guiding principles for citizens and can be considered by the judiciary while interpreting laws and constitutional provisions . Article 51A(g) acts as a moral and civic obligation on citizens, encouraging them to be responsible stewards of the environment. It can also influence the interpretation of statutes related to environmental protection and can be used to promote environmental awareness and education . Although citizens cannot be directly penalized for failing to fulfill their fundamental duties, these duties reflect the core values of the nation and can inform judicial reasoning and legislative intent in matters concerning the environment.
The Interplay between Article 51A(g) and the Directive Principles, particularly Article 48-A, is crucial, underscoring the shared responsibility between the State and its citizens in achieving environmental protection and sustainability . The alignment of the State’s duty to protect the environment with the citizens’ duty to do the same signifies a collaborative and collective approach that is essential for effective environmental governance. Achieving environmental sustainability requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders, with the government providing the legal and policy framework and citizens actively participating in environmentally responsible behavior.
Article 21: Right to Life and a Wholesome Environment
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution proclaims that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Over time, the Indian courts have remarkably expanded the interpretation of this provision to include the fundamental right to a wholesome and clean environment . Initially, the interpretation of Article 21 was more focused on procedural due process. However, the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India marked a turning point, leading to a broader and more substantive understanding of “life” and “personal liberty” . The judiciary recognized that the right to life encompasses not merely the physical act of breathing but also the right to live with dignity and to enjoy those aspects of life that make it meaningful. This opened the door for the inclusion of environmental rights under Article 21.
Several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court have explicitly established the right to a clean and healthy environment as an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court, in what is often considered the first case of its kind, linked the right to life with the right to a healthy environment, ordering the closure of limestone quarries causing ecological damage . The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India series of cases further solidified this principle, addressing various environmental issues such as the pollution of the Ganges River and industrial hazards, consistently affirming the right to live in a pollution-free environment as a fundamental right . In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the right to life includes the right to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life . Furthermore, the landmark judgment in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India applied the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, linking them to the fundamental right to a healthy environment under Article 21 . Most recently, the Supreme Court has recognized the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” as a fundamental right emanating from Article 21 (and Article 14), acknowledging the profound impacts of climate change on human life . This consistent and progressive interpretation of Article 21 demonstrates a strong judicial commitment to environmental protection.
Through this evolving interpretation, key legal principles have been established and reinforced in the context of environmental law, including the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, the public trust doctrine, and the principle of sustainable development . These judicially recognized principles provide a robust framework for addressing environmental issues in India.
Also Read : Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981
Application of the Right to a Wholesome Environment
The judicially recognized right to a wholesome environment under Article 21 has been applied in a wide array of environmental cases in India . In cases concerning industrial pollution, such as the Ganga pollution cases and the Oleum gas leak case, the courts have issued directives for pollution control measures and compensation to victims . In matters related to mining and deforestation, including the Dehradun quarrying case and the Forest Conservation Case, the courts have intervened to halt illegal activities and protect forest areas . The right has also been invoked to address vehicular pollution, as seen in the Delhi vehicular pollution case where the introduction of cleaner fuels was mandated . Furthermore, the courts have applied this right to protect specific ecosystems and monuments, such as in the Taj Mahal case, where air pollution was addressed to safeguard the iconic structure .
The significance of the right to a wholesome environment In Indian environmental jurisprudence cannot be overstated . It provides a strong constitutional basis for environmental protection, elevating environmental concerns to the level of a fundamental human right . This right has played a pivotal role in the development of environmental law principles and the promotion of environmental justice in India . Moreover, it has significantly influenced policy formulation and enforcement by the government and regulatory bodies .
The Role and Impact of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a transformative tool for environmental protection in India since the 1980s . The fundamental principle behind PIL is the relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi, which allows public-spirited individuals and organizations to approach the judiciary directly for public causes, including environmental protection . This has democratized access to environmental justice, enabling concerned citizens to raise critical environmental concerns before the courts.
PIL has played a crucial role in ensuring the effective enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in India . It has provided a mechanism for judicial oversight and intervention in cases of environmental non-compliance and inaction by both governmental agencies and private entities. Landmark PIL cases have also significantly contributed to the development and evolution of environmental jurisprudence in India . Judicial pronouncements in PIL cases have often resulted in the enunciation and application of key environmental law principles such as the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the public trust doctrine.
Several landmark cases exemplify the effectiveness of PIL in environmental protection . The various Ganga Pollution cases, spearheaded by M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, showcase the court’s continuous efforts to address the severe pollution of the river . The Taj Mahal case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) addressed the threat of air pollution to the iconic monument . The Dehradun Quarrying case (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh) resulted in the closure of illegal limestone quarries . The Vellore Tanneries case (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India) led to the application of the polluter pays principle . The Vehicular Pollution case in Delhi (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) mandated the introduction of CNG for public transport . These cases demonstrate the transformative impact of PIL in addressing critical environmental issues and achieving significant legal and policy outcomes in India.
Read Next : Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974
